Court Opinion

ID: 9830673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:22:33.19972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:25.439754
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
 Defendant in error, Auto Einance Company, in its motion for rehearing, complains of that portion of our judgment Which reversed and remanded the cause as to H. H. Tompkins; its contention being that, since Tompkins did not appeal, this court has no jurisdiction over him, and cannot in any way change or modify the judgment of the trial court in its favor against Tompkins. This question was settled adversely to defendant in error’s contention in the case of Hamilton v. Prescott, 73 Tex. 566, 11 S. W. 548, 549. In Hamilton v. Prescott, supra, which has been cited with approval many times, appel-lee recovered judgment against a number of parties, only two of whom appealed, and the Supreme Court, in reversing the judgment as to all parties, stated: '“That a judgment against two or more parties, which is appealed from by one, may be reversed as to the one, and affirmed as to the others, or may be reversed as a whole, according to the manifest justice of the case, we think the cases cited sufficiently show.”
Our courts now uniformly hold that, where the judgment is not severable, or where it adversely affects the rights of the party not appealing, or where justice demands, the appellate court may, in reversing a judgment for a party who appeals, reverse same as to those who do not appeal from the judgment of the trial court. Leonard v. Prater (Tex. Com. App.) 36 S.W.(2d) 216, 222; 3 Tex. Jur. 1112; Lipshitz v. Lindsay National Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 33 S.W.(2d) 874 (error ref.); Thomas v. Basden & Carrell (Tex. Civ. App.) 4 S.W.(2d) 336; Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. McClure (Tex. Civ. App.) 9 S.W.(2d) 198; Id. (Tex. Com. App.) 16 S.W.(2d) 280; Reeves v. McCracken, 103 Tex. 416, 128 S. W. 895; Thompson v. Kelley, 100 Tex. 536, 101 S. W. 1074.
In Leonard v. Prater, supra, judgment was rendered in the trial court against a number of parties, jointly and severally, for a debt and for the cancellation of a lien on certain land. Some of the defendants appealed, and others did not. Judge Short, in writing the opinion reversing the case as against all of the defendants, stated': “The original defendants in this case were jointly sued and were held to be jointly liable in the judgment rendered in the trial court; hence we are under the necessity to treat the judgment appealed from as an entirety. Where a reversal is -required as to one party, it will reverse the judgment as a whole. Article 2211, R. S. 1925; Ferguson v. Dickinson (Tex. Civ. App.) 138 S. W. 221; Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Long (Tex. Civ. App.) 183 S. W. 421.”
Unquestionably in this case Tompkins and Irwin were sued jointly as sureties on the replevy bond, and were by the judgment of the trial court held to be jointly liable thereon. It would be manifestly unjust to reverse the judgment as to one of the sureties and affirm the same as to the others.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.