Court Opinion

ID: 9827445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:33:25.442645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:31.443021
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant insists, in its motion for a rehearing, that we were in error in affirming this case, and that the appeal should be dismissed, because no - final judgment was rendered against all of the defendants to the suit. Although no assignment was urged in the original brief of appellant as'to this particular matter, yet, if it- be true, as alleged, that it is apparent of record that all of .the defendants to the litigation were not .disposed of by the judgment, the question, is "jurisdictional and constitutes a fundamental error, which may be reviewed at any time by an appellate court, .whether or not it is assigned as error.
We are, however, of the opinion that the record presents no such error as complained of. The original suit was filed by appellee, on (Tune 20, 1911, and named only the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas as defendant. Thereafter, on the 31st day of July, 1911, appellee, by a supplemental petition, made the Wabash Railway Company and the Illinois Central Railway Company parties defendant. All of these defendants answered by the same attorneys of record; hence there could be no cross-claim by one defendant over against.the other. Still later, on October 26, 1915, appel-lee filed its amended petition, in which it only alleged a cause of action against the original defendant, St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas, neither of the other two defendants being mentioned. The last amended petition was styled Texas Packing Company v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas. The court in its instruction to the jury used the singular noun “defendant”'; the pleadings in. the case used the singular noun “defendant” ; and apr pellee’s motion for a new trial used the singular noun “defendant” in describing' the party defendant to this suit. In fact the whole record discloses that the trial was conducted as if the only defendant was the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company *868of Texas, with, the exception of a specially requested charge by the Wabash Railway Company, which sought an instruction to the jury that it would be liable only for such damages as were sustained to appellee’s goods while they were in its actual possession. This charge was refused by the court. We are of the opinion that where the record discloses that there are two or more defendants named in a suit, and the plaintiff, before trial, amends the pleadings relied upon for a recovery, asserting a cause of action against only one of the defendants, it is tantamount to a dismissal or discontinuance as to all other defendants, since the Texas statutes do not require a formal dismissal of a suit. San Antonio & Aransas Pass Ry. Co. v. Mohl (Tex. Civ. App.) 37 S. W. 221 18 C. J. 1166.
After a careful examination of appellant’s motion for a new trial, we are of the opinion that the same should be overruled.
Overruled.