Court Opinion

ID: 9831658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:16:19.286293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:36.812976
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[6] Appellant contends there is no authority for considering the allegations of an answer, in aid of a petition, when passing on a demurrer. We think there is ample authority for so holding; and, in addition to the cases cited in our opinion, we call attention to the following cases: Lyon v. Logan, 68 Tex. 521, 5 S. W. 72, 2 Am. St. Rep. 511; Day Company v. State, 68 Tex. 538, 4 S. W. 865; Wright v. McCampbell, 75 Tex. 644, 13 S. W. 293; Zan v. Clark, 53 Tex. Civ. App. 525, 117 S. W. 892; Parlin & Orendorff Co. v. Hanson, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 401, 53 S. W. 62; Tres. Palacios Co. v. Eidman, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 542, 93 S. W. 699; Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Miller, 128 S. W. 1171; Security Trust Co. v. Caruthers, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 437, 32 S. W. 837; Riggs v. Pope, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 181, 21 S. W. 1013; Looney v. Simpson, 25 S. W. 477; Werner v. Hasten, 26 S. W. 322; Hennessy v. Clough, 40 S. W. 157; Weathered v. Golden, 34 S. W. 761. The cases cited by appellant, viz., Coons v. Green, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 612, 120 S. W. 1108, and Porter v. Pecos & M. T. Ry. Co., 56 Tex. Civ. App. 479, 121 S. W. 897, both decided by the Court of Civil Appeals of the Second District, assert the contrary doctrine. We regard these two cases as being contrary to the great weight of authority in Texas, and therefore adhere to the rule supported by the large number of cases above cited.
The ease of Biddle v. Terrell, 82 Tex. 335, 18 S. W. 691, relied upon by appellant, was one in which it was sought to have the court consider an allegation in plaintiff’s petition as expunged and replaced by a contradictory allegation in defendant’s answer, and the court held this could not be done. In this case no allegation of plaintiff’s petition need be dispensed with; but, if such allegations, standing alone, do not show the connection between the causes of action pleaded, then the answer may be looked to for the purpose of showing that the rights asserted to the property charged to have been converted are asserted under the claim that, in the sale by Mrs. Brockman to defendant, all the Brock-man horses were sold to him, and that he took said horses, claiming to own same under the bill of sale sought to be annulled in plaintiff’s petition. The connection between the causes of action is thus fully shown. See Riggs v. Pope, supra.
Motion overruled.