From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seiber v. Newman

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Amarillo
Nov 30, 1912
151 S.W. 585 (Tex. Civ. App. 1912)

Opinion

October 19, 1912. Rehearing Denied November 30, 1912.

Appeal from District Court, Hemphill County; L. S. Kinder, Judge.

Action by C. S. Seiber against A. M. Newman and another. From a judgment in favor of one defendant and for plaintiff against another defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part.

Willis Willis, of Canadian, for appellant. Baker Sanders and H. E. Hoover, all of Canadian, for appellees.


A peremptory instruction was given the jury by the trial court, and in accordance therewith verdict returned in favor of appellee Canadian Long Distance Telephone Company, and in favor of appellant, against A. M. Newman, for the amount of the note in suit. The judgment is affirmed as against A. M. Newman, and is reversed and remanded as to Canadian Long Distance Telephone Company. In view of another trial, it is not proper for us to discuss at length the evidence, but suffice it to say that there was sufficient testimony to have required the trial court to instruct the jury upon the issues, as contended for by appellant under his first, second, third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error. Special exception No. "C," urged by plaintiff as against defendant company's plea of estoppel, should have been sustained, as contended under the sixth assignment. Appellant's seventh assignment is not briefed as required by the rules, and is disregarded. What has been said disposes of the eighth assignment in favor of appellant. The ninth assignment is that the court erred in sustaining defendant telephone company's exception to plaintiff's special pleading in his first supplemental petition, in which plaintiff prayed in the alternative for the return of his property in the event it appeared that the same was acquired by the fraud of A. M. Newman. Since, under our system of pleading, a party may, in the same suit upon a contract, pray for performance, and in the alternative for rescission, without being held to have elected either remedy, it follows that the ninth assignment must be sustained.

Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.


Summaries of

Seiber v. Newman

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Amarillo
Nov 30, 1912
151 S.W. 585 (Tex. Civ. App. 1912)
Case details for

Seiber v. Newman

Case Details

Full title:SEIBER v. NEWMAN et al

Court:Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Amarillo

Date published: Nov 30, 1912

Citations

151 S.W. 585 (Tex. Civ. App. 1912)

Citing Cases

Stinson v. Sneed

But to entitle him to either remedy his pleadings must be framed accordingly and his prayer made in the…

Canadian Long Distance Tel. Co. v. Seiber

On a former appeal judgment against A. M. Newman was affirmed, and a judgment rendered upon an instructed…