Court Opinion

ID: 9834326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:29:08.295242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:13.795455
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We are of the opinion that the court erred in admitting the evidence of fraud and misrepresentation but properly refused to allow it to influence his judgment.. The, evidence, if it ha,d been- admissible under the pleas of privilege, which it was not, was not sufficient to indicate any fraud upon the part of the agent of appellee. If he stated that the notes were payable in Pampa, Tex., he stated a fact, and there was no effort on his part to conceal the fact that the penalty for a failure to pay at maturity was -that the notes should then be payable at Houston, Tex; The evidence does not show fraud upon the part of appellee but indicates gross carelessness, if their testimony be true, upon the part of appellants. They should not be permitted to evade their contract by showing' their carelessness.
There being no plea of fraud or misrepresentation, evidence of such fraud or misrepresentation cannot form the basis for a decision by the trial court or this court. The allegations must be broad enough to permit proof, and evidence not based upon allegations cannot sustain a judgment. This rule is uniform and has been given strict adherence. Young v. Lewis, 9 Tex. 77; Denison v. League, 16 Tex. 400; Loving v. Dixon, 56 Tex. 75; Laredo v. Russell, 56 Tex. 398; Railway v. Anderson, 76 Tex. 244, 13 S. W. 196; Farenthold v. Tell, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 110, 113 S. W. 635. So it does not matter whether appellee is properly in this court on its cross-assignment of error or not.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.