Court Opinion

ID: 9832208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:42:50.856854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:44.260911
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
By its motion for rehearing appellant contends that our opinion “is grounded upon a false premise from a factual standpoint,” because we considered the relative rates which the Commission changed to be $1.17 per ton from Ogden to Houston and $1.60 per ton from Lone Star Spur to Houston, thus making the same reduction of 45 cents from each shipping point. The $1.17 per ton rate was fixed in the order attacked by appellant, which order was attached to and made a part of its pleadings by reference. The specific contention seems to be that the facts stated in the attached copy of the rate order fixing the rate of $1.17 per ton do not become a part of the petition or the allegations thereof, and that we may consider only the rate of $1.20 alleged in the face of the petition, which, under the order, would give Ogden a 48-cent reduction and Lone Star Spur only a 45-cent reduction. In support of this contention appellant cites the case of City of Paris v. Bray, 107 Tex. 188, 175 S.W. 432, 433; and Rules 45 and 59, T.R.C.P., which announce the rule that only such written instruments may “be made a part of a pleading by reference and attaching the original? or copies as constitute, in whole or in part, the cause of action sued on, or the matter pleaded in defense.” This is precisely the rule we have applied in the instant case, because the rate order attached to and made a part of the pleadings by reference constitutes the cause of action sued upon by appellant. The alleged invalidity of this attached order is the whole subject matter of appellant’s suit. Houston Chamber of Commerce v. Railroad Commission, Tex.Civ.App., 19 S.W.2d 583, 587.
We are also of the view that the whole theory of appellant’s case as plead is that only by the application of a rate of 96 cents per ton from Lone Star Spur to Houston can a proper adjustment be established, under which theory the supposed 3-cent difference becomes immaterial. We fully stated appellant’s formula for recovery and contentions under this theory in our original opinion.
The motion is overruled.
Overruled.