Court Opinion

ID: 9829755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:35:54.956914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:05.773672
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In his motion for rehearing, defendant in error, Gaines, contends that the action of this court in reversing the judgment of the court below in his favor, and in here rendering judgment against him, was erroneous for the reason that the record does not show that the trial court had jurisdiction to render judgment against his codefendant, the Lake Austin Canal Company; and, the judgment of this court being against him as a surety on the note of the canal company, no judgment could be rendered against him as a surety without a valid judgment against the canal company to support it. His contention that the record fails to show that the trial court had jurisdiction to render judgment against the canal company is based upon the fact that judgment was rendered against said company by default, and the record fails to disclose that the canal company had been served with citation, other than by the recital of that fact in the -judgment itself.
[3] If, in these circumstances, the Lake Austin Canal Company had appealed, we would have felt, under the rules laid down in the following cases, that it was our duty to reverse the judgment against it: Daugherty v. Powell, 139 S. W. 625; McMickle v. Texarkana Nat. Bank, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 210, 23 S. W. 428; Glasscock v. Barnard, 125 S. W. 615; Mayhew v. Harrell, 57 Tex. Civ. App. 509, 122 S. W. 957; Wheeler v. Phillips, 22 S. W. 543.
[4] But the Lake Austin Canal Company did not appeal from the judgment against it, and Mr. Gaines not having, in his pleadings, sought any relief against the canal company by reason of his suretyship, the question raised cannot be presented for the canal com-, pany by its eodefendant, Gaines, and is not therefore properly before us for review.
[5] He further contends that this court erred in considering the assignments of error presented by the plaintiff in error, for the reason that such assignments do not present, for the consideration of this court, the questions considered and determined by it. A similar contention was raised by the defendant in error in his brief and considered by the court in passing upon the case, and it was our conclusion then, and is now, that the ob*690jections to ttLe assignments of error were untenable. The assignments are not as clear as they might be, but we then thought, and now think, they are sufficient to direct our attention to the errors complained of, and under article 1612, Revised Statutes, 1911, this was sufficient.
[6] Defendant in error further contends that, this court having rendered judgment against him as a surety for the canal company, the judgment should have been so framed as to first subject the property of the canal company to its satisfaction before proceeding against him for its collection. The answer to this is that no such relief was sought by his pleadings in the lower court, nor by him in his brief in this court.
Upon the riierits of the case we will not add to what was said in our main opinion, other than that a further investigation has satisfied us of the correctness of the conclusions there stated; and in further support of the opinion cite the recent case of People’s State Bank v. Fleming-Morton Co., 160 S. W. 648.
The motion is overruled.