Court Opinion

ID: 9827730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:48:32.308685+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:35.463208
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Mexican Central Railway Co. v. Mitten, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 653, 36 S. W. 282, was a suit for damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while a passenger on the defendant’s train, respiting from the wreck of the train. In the original petition it was alleged that the wreck occurred by reason of a defective bridge. In plaintiff’s amended petition, filed immediately before the trial, it was alleged that the wreck was caused by defects in the approach to the bridge. The Court of Civil Appeals held that the amended petition did not set up a new cause of action, as contended by the railroad company, and a writ of error was denied by the Supreme Court in that case.
In G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Perry, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 81, 85 S. W. 62, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed a judgment against the railroad company for $7,000 in favor of Rose Perry for the death of Joseph Perry, her husband, who was killed while working as foreman of a section gang. In plaintiff’s original petition the negligence relied on was permitting an obstruction on the track which caused a wreck of the hand car on which the deceased and the section gang were riding. In plaintiff’s amended petition a new and additional ground of negligence was alleged and which was the sole basis of recovery, to wit, negligence of the section gang in failing to obey the order of the foreman to stop the car before the same reached the obstruction. The Court of Civil Appeals overruled the contention that the amended petition set up a new cause of action' which was barred by the statute of limitation of two years because filed after the expiration of that period. And a writ of error to that decision was likewise refused by our Supreme Court.
The record shows that appellant’s motion for a continuance was made orally without objection, and the action of the court in overruling it is shown in a proper bill of exception ; but the motion contained no claim of surprise, or statement that defendant had reason to believe that testimony might probably be procured to prove that the metér box described in the amended petition was not in a defective condition, or that defendant was not negligent in failing to remedy the alleged defective condition.
Whether or not the amended petition presented a new cause of action was a question of law, and of course the motion was sufficient to present the objection that a new cause of action was pleaded, and by reason thereof the case should be continued.
We recognize the rule that, when an amended petition is filed on the eve of trial, a motion for continuance should be granted if the amendment embodies allegations of material facts not in the original petition, even though such new matter does not constitute a new cause of action, if the same operates as a surprise to the defendant and he is thereby, and without negligence on his part deprived of an opportunity to present a defense to such newly alleged facts. However, it was incumbent on the defendant to show injury by reason of a denial of its motion for continuance; and since it failed to make any showing, either in its motion for new trial or at some state of the trial, that, had the ease been continued and tried at another term of court, defendant could and would have produced testimony of some of its employees or from some other source which would have tended to defeat a recovery based on such new matter, no injury was shown as a result of the failure of the court to grant the continuance. T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Goldberg, 68 Tex. 685, 5 S. W. 824; I. & G. *874N. Ry. Co. v. Howell, 101 Tex. 603, 111 S. W. 142; 9 Texas Jurisprudence, pp. 681 to 689, and pp. 734 to 736.
We deem it unnecessary to discuss other contentions presented in the motion .for rehearing, since our conclusions thereon have been fully stated in our original opinion which we believe to be correct. And in further support of our conclusion that the exemption provision in the city charter, discussed in bur original opinion, is violative of the articles of our Constitution pointed out, we cite the late decision of our Supreme Court in an opinion by Chief Justice Cureton, in Hanks v. City of Port Arthur, 48 S.W.(2d) 944. Aud we will note further that this suit did not involve a defective condition of á public street, as was true in some eases cited by appellant, such as Lee v. City of Dallas (Tex. Civ. App.) 267 S. W. 1014.
Accordingly, the motion for rehearing is overruled.