Court Opinion

ID: 9828388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:20:05.14581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:47.714534
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
We are in error in our original opinion in our statement that appellee plead only that his motor “was gone”; that general allegation was followed by the following specific allegation: “That by reason of the wrongful act of the defendant herein in appropriating the motor described herein, your plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $167.50.” Where recovery is predicated upon.a general allegation, followed by a specific allegation explaining the general allegation, the plaintiff is confined to his specific allegation. Kansas City, M. & O. Railway Co. v. James (Tex.Civ.App.) 190 S.W. 1136; Missouri Valley Bridge & Iron Co. v. Ballard, 53 Tex.Civ.App. 110, 116 S.W. 93. On this proposition of law we sustain appellant’s theory of appellee’s petition that it was charged only “with converting the motor; with taking it out of appellee’s house.” There was no allegation in the petition that the motor was lost as a proximate result of the acts of negligence found against appellant by the jury’s verdict. On this conclusion, the judgment in appellee’s favor for damages for the loss of the motor is without support in the pleadings. In support of this conclusion, we quote the following general rule from 30 Tex.Jur. 721, par. 61: “A necessary allegation of the plaintiff’s pleading is that the injury or damage for which recovery is sought was proximately caused by the defendant’s act, or was the natural and probable result thereof, or ought to have been foreseen by him, in the light of the attending circumstances,” which has support in Van Velzer v. Houston Land & Trust Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 16 S.W.(2d) 865, and City of Wichita Falls v. Swartz (Tex.Civ.App.) 57 S.W.(2d) 236. It is also the law that in a tort action, the plaintiff is restricted to the acts of negligence pleaded in his petition, though the proof may show other acts of negligence, and, in submitting the case to the jury, the issues must be so framed as to submit only the issues raised by the pleadings. Gulf, C. & S. F. Railway Co. v. Baldwin (Tex.Civ.App.) 2 S.W.(2d) 520.
For the reasons stated, we erred in affirming the judgment of the lower court awarding appellee damages in the sum of $129.95 for the loss of the motor. It follows that the judgment of the lower court in all respects should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.