Court Opinion

ID: 9671109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:31:21.665429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:08.242855
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellant Chloe Vean Smith, owner of Empire Service Company, in her motion for rehearing, says that she did not object to the damage issue because no damage issue was submitted as to Empire Service Company. Appellant is obviously mistaken. In answering issues Nos. 141, 144, 151 and 152, the jury found (141) that Empire Service Company made unreasonable collection efforts against appellee Robert B. Dean; (144) in making said collection efforts against Robert B. Dean Empire Service Company acted with reckless disregard of Dean’s health and welfare; (151) as a proximate result of said collection efforts, Dean lost compensation from his work; (152) in the amount of $1,800. (These answers of the jury will be found in Vol. I, pages 121, 122, 123 and 125 of the Transcript.)
Appellant Chloe Vean Smith also says that Empire Service Company was not in existence when this suit was filed. Again appellant is obviously mistaken. The suit was filed June 22, 1951. It named Chloe Vean Smith as a defendant, but as one of the owners of Employees Service Company (Vol. II, page 100 Transcript). In his second amended petition, appellee names Chloe Vean Smith Wheatley (she had married John Wheatley) as owner of Empire Service Company, and alleges that about July *8711950 the payee in a note signed by Dean became Empire Service Company, Chloe Vean Smith Wheatley Owner, successor to C. N. Smith Loans. (Vol. IV, pages 78, 79, 84, 85 and 86, Transcript.)
The testimony of William Kinter, manager of Empire Service Company, also shows that Empire Service Company was in existence when this suit was filed June 22, 1951. Chloe Wheatley was the owner. The company records were produced. They show that Dean applied for credit in 1950 and the date of his last loan was in January 1951. (Vol. Two, pp. 510-512, Statement of Facts.)
Even if we were to hold (though we do not hold) that under the circumstances service of citation in connection with appellee Dean’s Original Petition was insufficient to put Chloe Vean Smith Wheatley in court on Dean’s amended petitions filed later, we would necessarily hold as we did in our original opinion, that she entered her appearance in the trial court when she filed a motion for new trial (Vol. III, page 169, Transcript) and thereafter a motion for re-mittitur and new trial (Vol. II, page 145, Transcript). She also entered her appearance in this Court by filing her appeal. Therefore she will be in court if there should be another trial, following a reversal on appeal.
Appellant Western Guaranty Loan Company, joined by other appellants, says that we should reverse and render judgment in this case, notwithstanding the fact that there was no finding under any one issue of the entire amount of damages caused jointly by all the defendants. Appellant points out that appellee Dean has already received $3,700 in settlements with various defendants ; there were findings in severalty under separate issues as to damages caused by certain of the remaining defendants — these several findings totaling $3,200, which appellant says we should accept as a finding of the entire damage. The amount thus arrived at as the entire damage is less than Dean has already received in settlements, so that his cause, say appellants, has been extinguished.
We are unable to agree. The total of $3,200 of the separate findings against some of the defendants is not the same as a finding of the entire damage caused jointly by all the tort-feasors. It takes into consideration only the damages caused by the defendants who did not settle with appellee. The entire damage must take into consideration the entire amount of damages caused by all the joint tort-feasors, including those who paid money in settlement as well as those against whom a judgment was rendered.
Appellant Royal Finance Company says that no damage issue was submitted as to Royal, therefore this case cannot be reversed and remanded for new trial, but should be reversed and rendered for appellant.
It is true as stated in our main opinion that no damage issue was submitted as to Royal. The trial court endeavored to repair the omission by his own finding as to damages. Neither Royal nor any of the other joint tort-feasors was entitled to a separate issue as to damages caused by each defendant separately. The court did not err in failing to submit a separate damage issue as to Royal Finance Company. The error lay in the court’s failure to submit one issue as to the entire damage caused jointly by all the tort-feasors. We see no basis for a rendering of judgment in favor of Royal Finance Company.
Appellee Dean in his motion for rehearing says that Royal Finance Company never objected or excepted to the finding of actual damages as to Royal on a separate liability basis. As pointed out above, no damage issue as to Royal was submitted to the jury. The court entered its own damage finding as to Royal. We think this was error. At any rate other defendants did object tO'.the court’s charge to the jury on the grounds that the court was in- error in submitting separate damage issues to the jury in a case where the damages were indivisible. Such *872objection was good. And the cause as to damages, being indivisible, cannot be reversed and remanded as to some of the parties found to be liable as participating joint tort-feasors and rendered in favor of others.
All motions for rehearing are overruled.