Bible v. Shelton

Court of Appeals of Texas

Bible v. Shelton

245 S.W. 248, 1922 Tex. App. LEXIS 1407

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 14, 1922

DocketNo. 6450.

StatusPublished

This text of 245 S.W. 248 (Bible v. Shelton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bible v. Shelton, 245 S.W. 248, 1922 Tex. App. LEXIS 1407 (Tex. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

KEY, C. J.

Mrs. Shelton, the appellee, brought this suit against appellant Roy Bible in tbe form of trespass to try title to two tracts of land, aggregating 460 acres. The plaintiff sued out a writ of sequestration, and the defendant gave a replevy bond. The defendant Bible first filed a general denial and plea of not guilty, but afterwards filed a disclaimer of title, and alleged that be was merely a tenant of the plaintiff, and asked for judgment for bis costs. There was a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict and judgment foij the plaintiff for the land in controversy, and for $300 with 6 per cent, interest thereon, for the rental value of the land; and the defendant Bible and the surety on his replevy bond have appealed.

We sustain the fifth assignment of error, which complains of the action of the trial court in rendering judgment against the surety on the replevy bond for.the entire rental value of the premises during the year 1920, although the bond was not executed and approved until the ,13th day of February, 1920. Sureties on such bonds are liable only for sucb damages, or for liability on bebalf of tbe principal, which accrue after the execution of the bond. Bateman v. Hip, 51 Tex. Civ. App. 405, 111 S. W. 971; Wandelohr v. Grayson County Natl. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 106 S. W. 413, affirmed by tbe Supreme Court, 102 Tex. 20, 108 S. W. 1154, reversed in part by tbe Supreme Court on another point, 102 Tex. 20, 112 S. W. 1046.

It does not appear from the testimony that the rental value of the property during the portion of the year 1920, which elapsed after the execution of the bond, was as much *249 as its rental value for the entire year, nor does the testimony show what the difference in such rental value would be. Hence we conclude that the surety is entitled to have the case reversed; and this we think renders it necessary to reverse and remand the entire ease.

Many of the other assignments of error relate to questions of pleading, and we do not think they point out reversible error. At any rate, the pleadings can be amended, and the questions referred to eliminated upon another trial. Assignments presenting other questions are overruled.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KEY, C. J.

Mrs. Shelton, the appellee, brought this suit against appellant Roy Bible in tbe form of trespass to try title to two tracts of land, aggregating 460 acres. The plaintiff sued out a writ of sequestration, and the defendant gave a replevy bond. The defendant Bible first filed a general denial and plea of not guilty, but afterwards filed a disclaimer of title, and alleged that be was merely a tenant of the plaintiff, and asked for judgment for bis costs. There was a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict and judgment foij the plaintiff for the land in controversy, and for $300 with 6 per cent, interest thereon, for the rental value of the land; and the defendant Bible and the surety on his replevy bond have appealed.

We sustain the fifth assignment of error, which complains of the action of the trial court in rendering judgment against the surety on the replevy bond for.the entire rental value of the premises during the year 1920, although the bond was not executed and approved until the ,13th day of February, 1920. Sureties on such bonds are liable only for sucb damages, or for liability on bebalf of tbe principal, which accrue after the execution of the bond. Bateman v. Hip, 51 Tex. Civ. App. 405, 111 S. W. 971; Wandelohr v. Grayson County Natl. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 106 S. W. 413, affirmed by tbe Supreme Court, 102 Tex. 20, 108 S. W. 1154, reversed in part by tbe Supreme Court on another point, 102 Tex. 20, 112 S. W. 1046.

It does not appear from the testimony that the rental value of the property during the portion of the year 1920, which elapsed after the execution of the bond, was as much *249 as its rental value for the entire year, nor does the testimony show what the difference in such rental value would be. Hence we conclude that the surety is entitled to have the case reversed; and this we think renders it necessary to reverse and remand the entire ease.

Many of the other assignments of error relate to questions of pleading, and we do not think they point out reversible error. At any rate, the pleadings can be amended, and the questions referred to eliminated upon another trial. Assignments presenting other questions are overruled.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 S.W. 248, 1922 Tex. App. LEXIS 1407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bible-v-shelton-texapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack