Cochran v. Wool Growers Central Storage Co

• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Critz
• Citation: Cochran v. Wool Growers Central Storage Co, 162 S.W.2d 941 (Tex. 1942)
• Decision Date: 20 May 1942
• Docket Number: No. 7908.,7908.
• Parties: COCHRAN v. WOOL GROWERS CENTRAL STORAGE CO.

162 S.W.2d 941

COCHRAN v. WOOL GROWERS CENTRAL STORAGE CO.

No. 7908.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 20, 1942.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Third Supreme Judicial District.

Suit by James R. Cochran against the Wool Growers Central Storage Company and another for alleged wrongful conversion by named defendant of wool belonging to plaintiff. Defendant Sweetwater Production Credit Association filed a disclaimer, and judgment was rendered thereon. A judgment for the plaintiff was reversed and cause was remanded for new trial, 153 S.W.2d 638, and the plaintiff brings error.

Writ of error dismissed.

Hughes, Hardeman & Wilson, of San Angelo, for plaintiff in error.

Collins, Jackson, Snodgrass & Blanks, of San Angelo, for defendants in error.

CRITZ, Justice.

This suit was filed in the District Court of Tom Green County, Texas, by James R. Cochran against Wool Growers Central Storage Company and Sweetwater Production Credit Association, both private corporations, to recover damages in the sum of $922.05, for the alleged willful conversion by the defendant Wool Growers Central Storage Company of 2885 pounds of wool belonging to Cochran. Cochran's petition alleged that Sweetwater Production Credit Association was claiming some interest in the wool, and made it a party in order that its interest might be adjudicated. We shall hereinafter refer to Wool. Growers Central Storage Company as the Storage Company, and to Sweetwater Production Credit Association as the Credit Association.

The Credit Association filed a disclaimer, and judgment was rendered thereon by the trial court, to the effect that it had and claimed no interest in the subject matter of the suit. That part of the court's judgment has become final, and we are not concerned with it here.

As between Cochran and the Storage Company, the case was tried in the district court, where it was submitted to a jury on special issues. The jury returned answers to such issues, and, based thereon, the trial court entered judgment for Cochran, against the Storage Company, for $922.05, less a credit of $493.22, representing the amount due on a note of the plaintiff to a San Angelo Bank, secured by the warehouse receipt representing this wool. This note was paid by the Storage Company out of the proceeds of this wool. On appeal by the Storage Company to the Court of Civil Appeals at Austin, the judgment of the district court was reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. Cochran brings error. 153 S.W.2d 638.

An examination of the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals will disclose that this is a damage suit, wherein the amount in controversy exceeds $500 and does not exceed $1,000, exclusive of interest. It is, therefore, a suit of which, under our Constitution, a county court would have had original jurisdiction. Section 16, Article V, Texas Constitution, Vernon's Ann.St. It follows that this is a case in which the jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Appeals is final, unless it comes under one of the exceptions set out in Subdivision 1 of Article 1821 of our Civil Statutes, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1821, subd. 1. The exception attempted to be relied on by the plaintiff in error, Cochran, is conflicts of decisions, as provided in the statute just mentioned. We here deem it expedient to quote in full the grounds of jurisdiction as contained in the application for writ of error:

"Grounds and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

"The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is founded upon:

"(a) Conflicts of the opinion and decision of the Court of Civil Appeals herein with prior opinions of the same Court of Civil Appeals, with opinions of different Courts of Civil Appeals and with opinions of the Supreme Court.

"(b) The fact that errors of substantive law have been committed by the Court of Civil Appeals.

"(c) The fact that such errors of law were of importance to the jurisprudence of the State.

"(d) The errors were not committed in a cause within the final jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Appeals.

"The conflicts of the opinion and decision of the Court of Civil Appeals herein with prior opinions of the same Court of Civil Appeals, with different Courts of Civil Appeals and with the Supreme Court are as follows:

"1. The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals herein, holding that the finding of the jury that the sale by Defendant in Error of Plaintiff in Error's wool was wilful, as that term was defined in the Court charge, was wholly without evidence to support it, is in conflict with the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in the case of Early-Foster Company v. Mid-Tex Oil Mills, 208 S.W. 224, writ of error refused.

"2. The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals herein, holding that the testimony of Plaintiff in Error concerning the market value of the wool in question was not of such a nature, and not given under circumstances, entitling it to conclusive effect, is in conflict with the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in the case of Farmers Mill & Elevator Company v. Hodges, 248 S.W. 72, 78; in Luling Oil & Gas Company v. Edwards, 32 S.W.2d 921, and Century Insurance Co., Ltd., etc., v. Hogan, 135 S.W.2d 224.

"The errors of substantive law which have been committed by the Court of Civil Appeals in its opinion are in holding:

"1. That the rule permitting the recovery of the highest intermediate market value of the wool between the date of conversion and...