Gonzales v. Flores

• Decision Date: 23 January 1918
• Docket Number: (No. 5950.)
• Citation: 200 S.W. 851
• Parties: GONZALES et al. v. FLORES.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

200 S.W. 851

GONZALES et al. v. FLORES.

(No. 5950.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

January 23, 1918.

On Motion for Rehearing, February 13, 1918.

Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; J. T. Sluder, Judge.

Suit by Miguel H. Flores against Maria Gonzales and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed. Rehearing and motion for certiorari denied.

Chambers & Watson, of San Antonio, for appellants. T. H. Ridgeway and L. B. Camp, both of San Antonio, for appellee.

MOURSUND, J.

Miguel H. Flores sued Maria Gonzales to recover certain personal property alleged to be of the value of $884.25, and by amended petition made F. A. Chapa and Telesforo Martinez parties defendant, alleging that she had sued out a writ of sequestration and caused the same to be levied by the sheriff upon the property sued for, whereupon defendant on October 4, 1910, duly executed a replevin bond in the sum of $1,800, with said Chapa and Martinez as sureties. Defendants answered by general demurrer and general denial. The cause was submitted upon special issues, to which no objections were urged, and in answer thereto the jury found that plaintiff's wife at the time of her marriage to plaintiff owned certain articles sued for, stating the reasonable cash market value as found by them at the date of the trial, the aggregate being $742.60, and that plaintiff purchased certain articles sued for after his marriage, the cash market value thereof at the time of the trial being stated, the aggregate being $90.45. The plaintiff in open court remitted the sum of $75, found to be the value of a brass bed, which was mentioned in the replevin bond, but was not mentioned in the amended petition. This sum was deducted from the value found by the jury, and judgment rendered for the remainder, $758.05, with 6 per cent. interest from date of the judgment against all of the defendants, such judgment being drawn in accordance with the sequestration statutes. All of the defendants appealed.

Appellants, having failed to object to the charge of the court, are in no position to contend that there is no evidence to support the verdict and judgment. Modern Woodmen of America v. Yanowsky, 187 S. W. 730; Elser v. Putnam, 171 S. W. 1052; Strong v. Harwell, 185 S. W. 676; Pearce v. Supreme Lodge, 190 S. W. 1156. The first and second assignments are therefore overruled.

The court permitted the introduction in evidence of the replevin bond, over defendant's objection that plaintiff must offer in evidence his application for writ of sequestration, his bond, and the writ of sequestration before the replevin bond would be admissible. Appellant contends that this ruling constitutes error, and also contends that the replevin bond, unaccompanied by proof of the instruments referred to, would not support a judgment against the sureties. It is not contended that the introduction of the bond in evidence was prejudicial to defendants upon any issue submitted to the jury. No issue with respect to the bond was submitted to the jury, and its validity or invalidity could not have affected the verdict. It was unnecessary to introduce the bond in evidence, as our statutes provide for a summary judgment to be rendered thereon if the suit is decided against the defendant. Article 7106, R. S. 1911; Tyson v. Bank, 154 S. W. 1055. The introduction of the bond, over the objection urged thereto, did not constitute such an error as would require a reversal of the judgment. The question, whether judgment should be rendered on the bond, was one which addressed itself exclusively to the court.

It is recited in the judgment that a replevy bond was given, the bond is copied in the judgment, and a recovery thereon decreed. This amounts to a finding that the replevy bond is valid. Appellants contend that, in the absence of the affidavit and bond for writ of sequestration, and the writ of sequestration, it cannot be determined that the replevy bond is valid, and that therefore it would not support a judgment. It is true that it has been held that when the writ of sequestration falls by reason of an order quashing the same, the replevy bond falls with it. Mitchell v. Bloom, 91 Tex. 634, 45 S. W. 558; Avery v. Popper & Bro., 92 Tex. 337, 49 S. W. 219, 50 S. W. 122, 71 Am. St. Rep. 849. No presumption can be indulged as against the judgment of the court that the replevin bond is invalid. It is valid on its face, and if there is any order of court quashing the writ of sequestration and thus invalidating the replevin bond, the defendants should have shown that fact, and urged it in their motion for new trial. As they are not able to show that the bond is invalid, the judgment of the court, in effect establishing its validity, must be upheld. The third and fourth assignments are overruled.

It appears from the motion for new trial that among the papers taken by the jury to the jury room were two original memoranda in Spanish from which plaintiff testified, but which, while filed, were not introduced in evidence. There is nothing in the record to show that the jury noticed or considered such memoranda, or that any of them understood the Spanish language. In the statement appellants contend that consideration of...