Valee v. Joiner, 1511-5809.

• Decision Date: 06 January 1932
• Docket Number: No. 1511-5809.,1511-5809.
• Citation: Valee v. Joiner, 44 S.W.2d 983 (Tex. 1932)
• Parties: VALEE et al. v. JOINER et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

44 S.W.2d 983

VALEE et al. v. JOINER et al.

No. 1511-5809.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

January 6, 1932.

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

Action by R. F. Joiner and others against Cecil E. Valee and another, constituting the Union City Transfer Company, and others. Judgment for plaintiffs was affirmed by Court of Civil Appeals [27 S.W.(2d) 917], and defendants bring error.

Reversed and cause remanded for new trial.

Hunt & Hunt and H. G. Butts, all of Houston, for plaintiffs in error.

Orgain & Carroll, Howell & Howell, and Major T. Bell, all of Beaumont, for defendants in error.

CRITZ, J.

We adopt the following statement of the nature and result of this case made by the Court of Civil Appeals : "On the 8th day of September, 1928, while a passenger on one of the street cars of appellant Eastern Texas Electric Company, appellee was seriously injured in a collision between the street car and a truck owned and operated by appellant Union City Transfer Company, a partnership composed of C. E. and H. E. Vallee. The collision occurred at the intersection of Neches and Royal streets in the city of Beaumont. The street car was traveling down Royal street and had entered the intersection of that street with Neches street when it was struck by the truck. As a result of the collision the street car was derailed, and appellee suffered serious injuries in the respects plead by him. His suit was against appellants as joint tort-feasors. Judgment in his favor was against appellants jointly and severally for $5,000 upon the verdict of the jury convicting them of negligence proximately causing his injuries. Each of the appellants plead over against the other that its negligence, if any, was only passive, while that of its codefendant was active, whereby it was entitled to judgment of indemnity over against its codefendant. On the verdict of the jury each defendant moved for judgment against his codefendant. The motion of Union City Transfer Company was granted giving it indemnity against defendant Eastern Texas Electric Company. Both defendants duly perfected an appeal, but only defendant Eastern Texas Electric Company briefed its assignments of error against the judgment of the lower court. Union City Transfer Company has filed a brief but the only proposition advanced is that the court did not err in rendering judgment in its favor against its codefendant. While its original assignments of error are brought forward in its brief, that is, attached to the back of its brief after the closing of its argument, these assignments are in no way made a part of the brief, in that no propositions of error are urged under them; also it should be said that this appellant in no way adopts the brief of its coappellant and asks for no relief whatever under the brief of its coappellant."

In the above condition of the record, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed Joiner's judgment against the transfer company, but reversed Joiner's judgment against the electric company, and also reversed the transfer company's judgment of indemnity against the electric company. 27 S.W.(2d) 917. The transfer company brings error.

The Court of Civil Appeals holds that on account of the failure of the transfer company, which is a copartnership composed of Cecil E. and Henry E. Vallee, to brief its assignments of error relative to Joiner's judgment against it, the appellate court was without power to review that part of the judgment, and for that reason alone...