Court Opinion

ID: 9777350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:07:56.957355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:52.768555
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellee Dealers Electrical Supply now asserts that we erred in our original opinion because we ignored Tex.R.Civ.P. 93(o) and failed to apply that rule. We cannot agree with this contention because Dealers Electrical failed to allege that Lambert was doing business as CTL Construction Company. Thus, Lambert was not required to answer in accordance with Rule 93(o). In this respect, Dealers assumes that it had pleaded that Lambert was doing business as CTL Construction Company; however, as noted in our original opinion, no such allegation was pleaded. The only reference in Dealer’s petition with respect to whether Lambert was doing business as CTL Construction Company was in the style of the case and in the preamble to the allegation, an anachronism which stated: “Now comes Dealers Electric Supply complaining of C. T. Lambert d/b/a CTL Construction Company and would show the following:.” Thereafter, in the numbered allegations of its petition, Dealers pleaded that two defendants had ordered and received the goods for which suit was brought but never alleged that Lambert was doing business as CTL Construction Company. Thus, whether plaintiff pleaded that Lambert was doing business as CTL Construction Company depends upon whether the arcane preamble is part of the allegations that plaintiff intended to prove. We hold that it is not a part of the original allegation.
Our holding is consistent with Tex.R. Civ.P. 50 which provides: “All averments of claim . .. shall be made in numbered paragraphs . . . Each claim founded upon a separate transaction . . . shall be stated in a separate count .... ” Thus, only those matters alleged in the body of the petition are matters upon which defendant is placed upon notice that plaintiff intends to prove upon trial. This rule is predicated upon the principle that pleadings are to place the opposing party on notice of that which plaintiff intends to prove. Neither the style of the case nor the preamble used here are allegations of fact so as to put the defendant on notice that plaintiff intends to prove that Lambert was doing business as CTL Construction Company as required by due process. Had Dealers Electrical intended to place Lambert on notice that it intended to prove that Lambert was doing business as CTL Construction Company, it should have so pleaded under a numbered paragraph in the body of the petition, consistent with rule 50. Indeed, apart from the style and preamble to the allegations, Dealers Electrical was suing two defendants, Lambert and CTL Construction Company, and prayed for judgment against each defendant, jointly and severally! We conclude, therefore, that neither matters contained in the language used by plaintiff in the style of the suit nor in the preamble to Dealers Electrical petition are matters putting the defendant on notice that plaintiff intended to prove those matters. Instead, we hold that only those particulars alleged in the body of the petition are matters which require response by the defendant under rule 93. Accordingly, we overrule Dealers Electric’s motion for rehearing and hold that a plaintiff must first plead facts alleging capacity before a defendant is required to respond under rule 93(o).