Court Opinion

ID: 9829279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:09:14.817208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:59.426654
License: Public Domain

*270On Motion for Rehearing.
On motion for rehearing appellant insists that he made no such appearance in this suit after the filing of the cross-action as, would render unnecessary service of notice on him of the cross-action, and cites in support of his contention the cases of Harris v. Schlinke, 95 Tex. 90, 65 S. W. 172; and Early v. Cornelius (Tex. Com. App.) 39 S. W.(2d) 6, 8. These cases merely apply to their own facts the general rule of law announced in our original opinion, and rean-nounced in the last case cited as follows; “Although the plaintiff is charged with notice of all pleadings filed in defense of his suit, he is entitled to notice of interventions and cross-actions affirmatively setting up causes of action against him, and judgments rendered against him upon such interventions and cross-actions, in the absence of notice, waiver, or appearance, will be set aside.”
- But the facts in the instant case clearly show an appearance by counsel for appellant after the filing of appellee’s cross-action which grew out of the subject-matter of appellant’s suit. That is, appellant’s suit was upon two written contracts, and appellee’s cross-action was to cancel the contracts as clouds upon title to real estate. The recitals in the judgment show that, after the filing of the cross-action, counsel for both appellant and appellee appeared in open court. The case was called for trial and counsel for appellant requested the court to pass upon ap-pellee’s special exceptions to the petition. Counsel for appellee announced that, since the trial was to be on the merits, the exceptions would be waived. Counsel for appellant announced that he was not ready on the merits, but thought that the case was set for a hearing on the application for receivership of the properties involved in the contracts in suit. The trial court held that the case was set for hearing .on its merits, whereupon counsel for appellant verbally requested that the ease be continued; and, upon objection of counsel for appellee to the continuance, counsel for appellant was given time to prepare and file a motion for continuance. No motion was filed. Counsel then deposited a jury fee and requested that the cause be placed on the jury docket, to which appellee objected on the ground that such procedure would work a continuance of his case, and the court so ruled, sustaining appellee’s objection. Counsel then announced that appellant had not complied with appellee’s -motion for a cost bond, and that the cause should be continued in order that he might comply with the motion. Appellee requested and was granted permission to withdraw his motion for cost, and insisted that appellant be required to proceed with the trial; whereupon counsel for appellant moved to dismiss the suit, which motion was overruled upon ap-pellee’s objection that he had filed a cross-action. Counsel for appellant then requested that he be permitted to take a nonsuit, which request was granted by the trial court, but without prejudice to appellee’s cross-action. Appellee then announced ready on his cross-action, and, although the trial court requested counsel for appellant to proceed with the trial of the cross-action, he refused to do so, hut “remained silent.” Manifestly these facts constitute an appearance by appellant in the suit after the filing of the cross-action, under the rule announced in the cases cited by appellant, as well as cases cited in the original opinion, and the following cases: Davis v. Wichita State Bank & Trust Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 286 S. W. 584; Degetau v. Mayer (Tex. Civ. App.) 145 S. W. 1054; Mueller v. Heidemeyer, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 259, 109 S. W. 447; and Morrison v. Walker, 22 Tex. 19.
Motion overruled.