Mutual Inv. Corporation v. Hays, 1436-6080.
| Decision Date | 19 April 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 1436-6080.,1436-6080. |
| Parties | MUTUAL INV. CORPORATION v. HAYS et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
A. H. Lumpkin and Saunders, Saunders & Whipple, all of San Antonio, for plaintiff in error.
Hertzberg & Kercheville, of San Antonio, for defendants in error.
Plaintiff in error, the Mutual Investment Corporation, brought this suit against defendant in error C. L. Quig to recover principal, interest, and attorneys' fees on a promissory note executed by the latter for the sum of $1,578.16, and to foreclose a chattel mortgage on an automobile given to secure the payment of said note.
Plaintiff in error obtained possession of the automobile covered by the mortgage under a writ of sequestration, issued at its instance, and the defendant in error Quig replevied the same. The replevy bond was in the sum of $2,000 executed by Quig as principal and E. M. Hays and Stephen Bettley as sureties.
The case was tried by the court without a jury. Plaintiff in error elected to prove the value of the automobile at the time of the execution of the replevy bond as provided in article 6852, R. C. S. 1925. In order to ascertain the damage to the car while in the possession of the defendant in error, plaintiff in error proved the value of the automobile as of the date of the trial.
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff in error against defendant in error Quig, and the sureties on his replevy bond for the sum of $1,420.79, with a foreclosure of its mortgage lien on the automobile. It appears from the judgment the court determined that the reasonable market value of said automobile at the time of the execution of the replevy bond was the sum of $1,500, and that at the time of the trial such value was $650. It was provided in said judgment that, if the automobile should be surrendered to the sheriff within ten days from the date of the rendition of the judgment, the judgment against the sureties on the replevy bond should be reduced in the sum of $650, the reasonable value of the mortgaged property at the time of the trial, and that the balance of the judgment in the sum of $770.78 should be collected against sureties as under execution. The judgment directed the sheriff to seize the automobile and sell the same as under execution, and that, if the proceeds of such sale should be insufficient to satisfy the judgment, then the officer executing such writ was ordered to make the balance remaining unpaid out of any other property of defendant in error Quig "or his bondsmen."
The trial court did not file findings of fact or conclusions of law, and the record does not contain any statement of the facts proven upon the trial.
The Court of Civil Appeals held that no judgment was authorized against the sureties on the replevy bond. It reversed the judgment of the trial court as to said sureties, and rendered judgment in their favor. The basis for the ruling made by the Court of Civil Appeals appears from the following quotation from its opinion: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Ferguson
...Corp. v. Smith, 143 Tex. 612, 187 S.W.2d 363 (1945); McElyea v. Parker, 125 Tex. 225, 81 S.W.2d 649 (1935); Mutual Inv. Corporation v. Hays, 59 S.W.2d 97 (1933, Com.App.). Under this rule we are entitled to presume that Judge Ferguson heard or gave just as much relevant evidence as the tria......
-
Kelley v. Central Tex. Bus Lines, 3062
...it and passed upon all the facts necessary to authorize it to render judgment in the manner and form as rendered. See Mutual Inv. Corp. v. Hays, Tex.Com.App., 59 S.W.2d 97, pt. 1, p. 98. See also cases collated under Vol. 4 Texas Digest, Appeal and Error, Appellants' sole point is: 'The tri......
-
Qualia v. Southern Farm Bureau Ins. Co.
...not obtain when the trial court fails to render a judgment upon the findings. Schweizer v. Adcock, 194 S.W.2d 549; Mutual Inv. Corporation v. Hays, Tex.Com.App., 59 S.W.2d 97. To hold otherwise would be to strike down a judgment by presumption. Schweizer v. Adcock, 194 S.W.2d There is nothi......
-
Schweizer v. Adcock, A-780.
...a judgment upon the findings and, as in the present case, renders a judgment notwithstanding the findings. Mutual Investment Corporation v. Hays, Tex.Com.App., 59 S.W.2d 97; Eucaline Medicine Co. v. Standard Inv. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 25 S.W.2d 259, writ refused. The following statement in the......