Court Opinion

ID: 9675410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:52:44.723426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:34.349069
License: Public Domain

NORVELL, Justice
(dissenting).
Leonard M. Fisher, Sheriff of Calhoun County, a wholly disinterested witness, who investigated the collision in line with his duty as a public official, testified with ref*544erence to the insignia on the truck as follows: '
“Q Did the cab (of the truck) have any lettering on it? A Yes, sir. As I remember, it was W. B. Johnston and Sons, Victoria,’ but I know it was ‘Johnston and Sons’.”
A witness necessarily testifies from his rememberance and to me the testimony quoted seems reasonably 'positive and definite, and, certainly, it could have been easily contradicted had it been untrue. But, whether Fisher’s testimony be considered as establishing the fact that the insignia on the truck was “W. B. Johnston and Sons” or “Johnston and Sons,” the rule should be the same. The words “Johnston and Sons” are the “outstanding and distinctive words of defendants’ business or trade name” and would perhaps make the most lasting impression upon an observer. Vance v. Freedom Oil Works Co., 113 Pa. Super. 280, 173 A. 496; 9 Blashfield (Part 2) 362, § 6053. It should be held that the defendants were called upon to speak and rebut the presumption if the truck were not in fact being used in their business. Reed v. Plorn’s Motor Express, 123 Pa.Super. 411, 187 A. 275.
Strickland Transport Co. v. Atkins, Tex.Civ.App., 223 S.W.2d 675, is not in point here unless it be assumed that the sheriff’s testimony is fraught with “uncertainty.” However that may be, I think this case should be decided in accordance with the prevailing American rule on the subject. Nothing except uncertainty is achieved by departing therefrom. I would grant appellant’s motion for rehearing and reverse the order appealed from. Reilly v. Buster, Tex.Civ.App., 52 S.W.2d 521; Younger Brothers, Inc. v. Power, Tex.Civ. App., 92 S.W.2d 1147; Green v. Scales, Tex.Civ.App., 219 S.W. 274; Edgeworth v. Wood, 58 N.J.L. 463, 33 A. 940;. Presumptions and Third Party Liability in Automobile Accident Cases -by James R. Hubbard, 2 Baylor Law Review 432, in which it is demonstrated with abundant citation of authorities that the views contended for in this dissenting -opinion are not only in accordance with the general American rule but also are supported by the weight of authority in Texas.
I respectfully dissent from the order overruling appellant’s motion for rehearing.