Court Opinion

ID: 9827139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:12:45.873429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:24.337006
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee attempts to present in this motion its cross-assignments of error which *491were not presented in a brief at the original submission of this cause. Under the circumstances, such cross-assignments cannot be considered by us, but they will be regarded as waived. 3 C. J. p. 1446.
We have concluded that this cause should not have been rendered as to the $4,000 item attempted to be pleaded in paragraph 18 of appellee’s petition, but as to this item this cause should be remanded. To this extent the motion for a rehearing wiil be granted.
This requires that we pass upon appellants’ fifth proposition.
Appellee’s petition alleges that the district was created on April 2, 1929, and that the personal appellants herein were its first directors, and that they each executed bonds in the sum of $5,000 with the American Surety Company as surety. Article 7.639, R. S. 1925, provides for the giving of such a bond. Article 7717 provides that such officers shall only serve until the next regular election. Under the provisions of article 7718, such next regular election should have been held on the second Tuesday'in January, 1930, and the petition alleges that such an election was held on January 14, 1930, but does not show who was elected or whether or not new officers qualified and gave new bonds.
We conclude that the bonds described in the petition would be effective only until the second Tuesday in January, 1930, plus a reasonable time for the newly elected officers, whether they be the same persons or different persons, to qualify and give new bonds. The alleged defalcation, a recovery for which-is asked for in paragraph 18 of appellee’s petition, is alleged to have occurred on November 20, 1930, some eleven months after the election, which was held in January, 1930.. Eleven months is more than a reasonable length of time for the new officers to qualify and give bonds, and thus, under these allegations, the American Surety Company could not be held on these bonds. We sustain appellants’ fifth proposition.
The judgment of the trial court, wherein it denied appellee any recovery other than the items described in paragraphs 15 and 18, will be affirmed, appellee not having appealed from, same; that part of the judgment which permits appellee a recovery in the sums of $800 and $8,900, as set forth in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the judgment, is reversed and here rendered that appellee take nothing by reason of said items, and that part of said judgment which gives appellee a recovery in the sum of $4,000 as set forth m paragraph 1 of the judgment is reversed, and this cause is remanded only as to this item, which is the item described in paragraph 18 of appellee’s petition.
Affirmed in part, reversed and rendered in part, and reversed and remanded in part.