Court Opinion

ID: 9641377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:30:09.60596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:36.926926
License: Public Domain

ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING
Harry S. Scaling, a third-party defendant, asserts in a motion for rehearing that we erred when we modified that part of the judgment which deals with Bank’s recovery from him and Baird. We agree.
No appeal was taken by, or against, Scaling and Baird. They are not named as obligees in the appeal bonds of either plaintiff or Bank. Thus, they are not before us and we are without jurisdiction to change the judgment insofar as it affects them. Jackson v. Fontaine’s Clinics, Inc., (Tex.Sup., 1973) 499 S.W.2d 87.
Bank also seeks a rehearing or, alternatively, certification to our State Supreme Court of a question related to the construction of Sec. 8.306, Bus. & Com.Code. A careful consideration of these motions has led us to the conclusion that they are without merit. They are overruled.
Scaling’s motion is granted. That portion of our original opinion in which we attempted to modify the judgment by increasing Bank’s recovery from Scaling and Baird is deleted therefrom. The remainder of the opinion, including that part in which we reform the judgment to allow plaintiff a recovery from Bank of $78,687.-50 together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from February 22, 1971, until paid, is left unchanged.