Court Opinion

ID: 9832955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:19:43.33284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:56.235190
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellant’s third proposition was overruled upon the assumption by us that the .cross-action of Kuykendall was for rescission of his purchase of the Anglin note. This assumption was erroneous. On the contrary, the cross-action was for damages resulting from the purchase of the note, which purchase, it was alleged, was induced by the false representation of appellant that the note was secured by first lien upon the automobile. This being the nature of the action, it was incumbent upon Kuykendall to plead and prove the difference between the value of the property received and that given in exchange. It was alleged that Kuykendall gave a Buick automobile of the value of $1,-100, in exchange for the note and a truck trailer of the value of $275. There is neither plea nor any competent evidence that the Anglin note was worthless. There iá no allegation whatever as to its value. In this state of the record the appellant’s third propositions and the assignments to which it *325is subjoined are well taken, and we erred in overruling same. Medley v. Lamb (Tes. Civ. App.) 223 S. W. 1048.
The judgment of affirmance is therefore set aside, and the cause will be reversed and remanded. Tbe order of reversal does not in any wise disturb tbe judgment rendered in favor of tbe plaintiffs Seale against Anglin and Kuykendall for reasons indicated in tbe original opinion.
Tbe reversal necessarily operates to set aside tbe judgment in favor of Blankenbeckler against Anglin, as that is dependent upon tbe judgment in favor of Kuykendall against Blankenbeckler.
Upon retrial tbe issues will be confined to tbe cross-action of Kuykendall against Blankenbeckler and tbe latter’s cross-action against Anglin.
Tbe motion for rebearing is granted, and tbe cause reversed and remanded for retrial as indicated.