We hold that the motion for rehearing meets the requirements of Rule 458. Bay v. Mecom, 393 S.W.2d 819 (Tex.Sup. 1965); Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Farmers' Merchants' National Bank, 89 Tex. 329, 34 S.W. 736 (1896). All references to rules are to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
In that case the appellant sought to perfect an appeal from three different judgments by filing a single appeal bond, and the appeal was dismissed for want of a sufficient bond. That is not the situation in this case. While not precisely in point on the facts, the clear holding of this Court in Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Farmers' Merchants' Nat. Bank, 89 Tex. 329, 34 S.W. 736 (1896), is that an appeal is not to be dismissed merely because more than one final judgment is appealed from and embraced in the appeal. Rule 1 dictates that a liberal construction be given the Rules of Civil Procedure 'to obtain a just, fair, equitable and impartial adjudication of the rights of litigants under established principles of substantive law.' Rule 376 requires the clerk of a trial court to prepare a transcript under the direction of the appellant, and Rule 370 enlists the cooperation of the appellant in including in the transcript only those documents and orders necessary to a full and fair consideration of the questions to be decided on the appeal.
The court may consider two judgments in one case founded on one cause of action, on one appeal. Phenix Ins. Co. v. Jacobs, 23 Ind. App. 509, 55 N.E. 779; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Van Elderen (C.C.A.) 137 F. 557; Metropolitan Co. v. F. M. Bank, 89 Tex. 329, 34 S.W. 736. Defendant was properly styled.
Moreover neither the caption of the Act nor the Act itself purports in any part or parts thereof to in any way abridge, limit or affect any of the general statutes of the State governing practice in civil cases to distinguish this from any other civil case, and nothing is more deprecated by our own courts than numerous and fruitless appeals. Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Farmers M. Bank, 89 Tex. 329; Martin v. Crow, 28 Tex. 616. Independent of the statute in question, prior to its enactment this suit might have been brought jointly against the Texas Central and the Frisco roads for the injury occurring to the cattle by reason of the notice given by both, which was acted upon by plaintiff, to bring in the cattle necessary to make two trainloads, and by reason of their agreements to furnish cars for said shipment and failure to do so. Gulf, C. S.F. Ry. Co. v. McWhirter, 77 Tex. 360.
The judgment of the court, that appellant did not have a lien upon the nursery stock, and was therefore not entitled to the proceeds of the sale of same, was a final judgment, so far as this particular matter was concerned. The controversy was between the appellant and the appellee, as receiver; the judgment finally determined appellant's right, and we think it could be appealed from. Fagan Osgood v. Bogle Ice Machine Co., 65 Tex. 324; Trust Co. v. National Bank, 89 Tex. 329, 34 S.W. 736. Upon the merits of this appeal, the sole question presented for our determination is thus stated by the Loan Company in its brief as follows: