J. M. Abott Oil Co. v. San Antonio Brewing Ass'n
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | Ramsey |
| Citation | 141 S.W. 517 |
| Parties | J. M. ABOTT OIL CO. et al. v. SAN ANTONIO BREWING ASS'N. |
| Decision Date | 20 December 1911 |
v.
SAN ANTONIO BREWING ASS'N.
Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Fourth Supreme Judicial District.
Action by the San Antonio Brewing Association against the J. M. Abott Oil Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff in the Court of Civil Appeals (129 S. W. 373), and defendants bring error. Reversed and remanded.
Hunt, Myer & Townes, for plaintiffs in error. Newton & Ward, Griggs & Barclay, and Wilson, Dabney & Meachum, for defendant in error.
RAMSEY, J.
The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fourth Supreme Judicial District, as reported in 129 S. W. 373, states the case with sufficient fullness and particularity, except that it does not distinctly appear from that opinion that the bond executed by the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, dated March 3, 1906, on which a recovery is sought, was not only not admitted in evidence, but was in terms by the trial court expressly excluded. In this state of the record, it was improper that the Court of Civil Appeals should have rendered judgment in favor of the defendant in error against said United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company. This question was directly ruled in the recent case of Eidson v. Reeder, 101 Tex. 202, 105 S. W. 1113. In that case certain testimony was offered by the defendants, and was by the trial court excluded. Notwithstanding this, the judgment of the district court was, by the Court of Civil Appeals, reversed, and judgment (102 S. W. 750) entered against Eidson and in favor of Reeder and Wiley for the land in controversy; the Court of Civil Appeals basing its judgment on the excluded testimony.
In discussing this matter, Chief Justice Brown, who wrote for the court, said: "The authority of the Court of Civil Appeals to enter the judgment in this case rests upon the following article of the Revised Statutes: `Art. 1027. When the judgment or decree of the court below shall be reversed, the court shall proceed to render such judgment or decree as the court below should have rendered, except when it is necessary that some matter of fact be ascertained or the damage to be assessed or the matter to be decreed is uncertain, in either of which cases the cause shall be remanded for a new trial in the court below.' The jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Appeals is appellate, and it has no power to find facts in the first instance. Patrick v. Smith, 90 Tex. 267 [38 S. W. 17]. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Transport Ins. Co. v. Faircloth, No. D-4059
...may not reverse and render a different judgment based on excluded evidence. J.M. Abott Oil Co. v. San Antonio Brewing Ass'n, 104 Tex. 574, 141 S.W. 517, 517 (1911); see Martin v. Allman, 668 S.W.2d 795, 799 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1984, no writ) (holding that a party is entitled to rely on a favo......
-
The Leader v. Elder Mfg. Co., No. 1470-5708.
...Tex. 267, 38 S. W. 17; Eidson v. Reeder et al., 101 Tex. 202, 105 S. W. 1113; Abbott Oil Co. v. San Antonio Brewing Ass'n, 104 Tex. 574, 141 S. W. 517; Nast v. S. A. U. & G. Ry. Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 261 S. W. It is also equally well settled in this state that where an attachment of property......
-
Baldwin v. Willis, No. 4820
...Smith, 90 Tex. 267, 38 S.W. 17; Eidson v. Reeder, 101 Tex. 202, 105 S.W. 1113; Abbott Oil Co. v. San Antonio Brewing Ass'n, 104 Tex. 574, 141 S.W. 517; Nast v. San Antonio U. & G. Ry. Co., Tex.Com.App., 261 S.W. 1011. The Article 1856 of the statutes referred to in the decision is now incor......
-
Cusack v. Cusack, No. 10319.
...in so doing if the evidence excluded had been admitted. Abbott Oil Page 1023 Co. v. San Antonio Brewing Association, 104 Tex. 574, 141 S.W. 517. Reversed and remanded, Chief Justice PLEASANTS GRAVES, J., did not sit in this case. PLEASANTS, Chief Justice (dissenting). When the opinion of th......
-
Transport Ins. Co. v. Faircloth, No. D-4059
...may not reverse and render a different judgment based on excluded evidence. J.M. Abott Oil Co. v. San Antonio Brewing Ass'n, 104 Tex. 574, 141 S.W. 517, 517 (1911); see Martin v. Allman, 668 S.W.2d 795, 799 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1984, no writ) (holding that a party is entitled to rely on a favo......
-
The Leader v. Elder Mfg. Co., No. 1470-5708.
...Tex. 267, 38 S. W. 17; Eidson v. Reeder et al., 101 Tex. 202, 105 S. W. 1113; Abbott Oil Co. v. San Antonio Brewing Ass'n, 104 Tex. 574, 141 S. W. 517; Nast v. S. A. U. & G. Ry. Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 261 S. W. It is also equally well settled in this state that where an attachment of property......
-
Baldwin v. Willis, No. 4820
...Smith, 90 Tex. 267, 38 S.W. 17; Eidson v. Reeder, 101 Tex. 202, 105 S.W. 1113; Abbott Oil Co. v. San Antonio Brewing Ass'n, 104 Tex. 574, 141 S.W. 517; Nast v. San Antonio U. & G. Ry. Co., Tex.Com.App., 261 S.W. 1011. The Article 1856 of the statutes referred to in the decision is now incor......
-
Cusack v. Cusack, No. 10319.
...in so doing if the evidence excluded had been admitted. Abbott Oil Page 1023 Co. v. San Antonio Brewing Association, 104 Tex. 574, 141 S.W. 517. Reversed and remanded, Chief Justice PLEASANTS GRAVES, J., did not sit in this case. PLEASANTS, Chief Justice (dissenting). When the opinion of th......