Court Opinion

ID: 9832214
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:43:01.591698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:44.302620
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The plaintiff in error in a motion for rehearing vigorously attacks our holding above to the effect that the pleadings were insufficient to authorize a foreclosure for partial performance of the contract and asserts that such recovery was authorized under his prayer for general relief. While the relief granted to a party must have support in a specific or general prayer, the relief asked must be consistent with the facts alleged. In interpreting the pleading the prayer may be considered but it is subordinate to the averments of fact because the facts alleged go to the cause of action while the relief asked merely specifies the purpose of bringing the suit. 33 Tex.Jur. 466, para. 46. The prayer of a petition will not be construed as enlarging upbn the petition so as to embrace a cause of action not pleaded. Arrington v. McDaniel et al., Tex.Com.App., 14 S.W.2d 1009; Nye et al. v. Gribble, 70 Tex. 458, 8 S.W. 608. In Milliken v. Smoot, 64 Tex. 171, in an opinion by Justice Stayton, it is held: “A plaintiff must recover in the right in which he sues,, and upon the facts stated in his pleadings as the basis of, that right, and cannot recover through a right adverse to that as^-serted, it matters not what the prayer of the petition may be. * * * A prayer for relief inconsistent with the facts stated as *859the basis for relief is of no value whatever.”
In connection with this rule announced by our Supreme Court we again call attention to the fact that the plaintiff in error failed to allege that the contract contained a provision for foreclosure upon partial performance nor did he allege.the amount reasonably necessary to complete the improvements. These averments were necessary in order to have authorized the •court to grant the relief under the general prayer which the plaintiff in error now contends he was entitled to. Without these fact allegations the jurisdiction of the court was not invoked to grant such relief. On the issue of jurisdiction of the court as based upon the pleadings, in Dunlap et al. v. Southerlin et al., 63 Tex. 38, 42, Justice .Stayton, agaiii speaking for the Supreme •Court of Texas, said: “Courts have no more power, until their action is called into exercise by some kind of pleading, to ren■der a judgment in favor of any person than they have to render judgment against a person until he has been brought within the jurisdiction of the court in some method recognized by law as sufficient; * *
The motion for rehearing is overruled.