Court Opinion

ID: 9646309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 12:56:38.166305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:37.093260
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
By assignment of error numbered “LVI” appellee contends, in effect, that the second sentence of the injunctive decree as modified by this Court should.be amended so as to read as follows: “Said parties are also enjoined from instigating and advising others to file claims and lawsuits against Plaintiff or Intervener (appellee), and from threatening to do so.”
We are of the opinion that the instigátion of the filing of claims" is violative of the barratry statute. McCloskey v. San Antonio Public Service Co., Tex.Civ.App., 51 S.W.2d 1088. Particularly is this true when one party uses the threat of the filing of numerous claims against another party in an attempt to force a settlement of a certain specific claim at issue. The. in*752junction should, however, not be limited to the particular example given. The provisions of Article 430, Vernon’s' Ann.Pen. Code are much broader and expressly proscribe the instigation or encouragement of “the bringing or prosecution of any claiin in which (a party) has no interest”. Appellee’s point numbered “LVI” is sustained and our judgment will be modified accordingly.
Appellee, by a number of assignments, complains of our holding that he is not in a position to demand that appellant bureau be restrained from compromising claims which have been asserted against him. Particular objection is made to our statement in the original opinion that, “In effect, appellee is requesting a court [of equity] to take an- action which he could have taken'himself.” ,
R. R. Maloan, Traveling Freight Claim Adjuster for the Missouri Pacific Lines, testified that he' had been working for said railroads since 1926 as an investigator and adjuster of freight claims; that the “Principles and Practices” were put out by the Claims Division of the Association of American Railways in an effort.to secure a universal claim payment policy for all rail lines; that he does not make any payment arising from conferences with claimants or their representatives unless the claim is in conformity with “Principles and Practices,” and that regardless of what the law may be he is governed by said “Principles and Practices.”
As to the way in which a-“conference” is conducted, Maloan testified as follows: “Well, I go to (the bureau’s) office with a number of.claims, * . * * I usually have them lined up in numerical order insofar as our claim numbers are concerned. I give (the bureau’s representative) the record of movement,, together with the schedule applicable and depending on the type of service,.protective service under which the shipment is moving, giving him that record. If there is delay we figure market decline, if any, and if there is any difference, then we determine the loss based on the market value on date due as against what was realized, and if there is delay located with the'claimant, then amount is prorated.- If there is a protective service defect, that then is prorated depending upon the seriousness of it, and that deducted from the total loss, and then the total loss prorated as to delay. Of course, that is figured on the average with the good order' packages in the - car, and every dollar received in salvage by the receiver, the amount of salvage received less the handling charges, and that payment as a general rule is 100 per cent. ■ Sometimes my offer is accepted and sometimes it is not."
We believe the testimony of appellee’s freight claim adjuster fully supports our statement of- the record set' forth in the original opinion. Upon analysis it will be found that for the most part appellee’s complaints, including the one now under discussion, are not directed to the separate details of the operating processes of the bureau, but rather to its being operated at all. We differ with appellee in that we hold that the injunction should be restricted to the illegal items or details of the bureau’s method of operation, and to those about which the appellee is in a- position to' complain. In our opinion, appellee has cited no authority which would justify the extension of the injunction beyond the scope prescribed by this Court in its original opinion as modified in the particular herein-above .set out.
The trial court refused to hold that the members of the appellant bureau could not testify in lawsuits filed against appellee. Appellant complained of this ruling by cross point. Our failure to sustain . said point is assigned as error upon rehearing. Appellee argues that as the members of the bureau receive a certain percentage of any recovery obtained by reason of their contract with the plaintiff shippers, they should be disqualified from testifying, This point was overruled for the reason that in the absence of special circumstances not disclosed by the present record, a court will not attempt to determine the admissibility of evidence which may be offered upon the trial of a.lawsuit which subsequently may be filed. Anderson, Declaratory Judgments, p. 148, § 53.
*753Appellee’s motion' for rehearing- is' granted in part, as above indicated. In all other particulars it is overruled.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing has also been considered and is overruled.