[Download] "Edward C. James Et Al. v. Robert W. Drye Et Al." by Austin No. 10562 Court of Civil Appeals of Texas # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Edward C. James Et Al. v. Robert W. Drye Et Al.
- Author : Austin No. 10562 Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
- Release Date : January 28, 1958
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 60 KB
Description
On Motion for Rehearing Appellants complain that we did not state the substance of their pleadings or the evidence. We did
not purport to do this for the reasons stated in our opinion. The transcript in this case contains 154 pages, the statement
of facts 588 pages, excluding exhibits, the briefs 283 pages and this motion for rehearing 77 pages. To needlessly digest
this mass of material would be a disservice to the litigants and without benefit to any one. We will insert here a few excerpts
from appellants' motion to show the basis of their contentions: "We feel that a grave injustice has been done these Appellants by the Court's refusal to state in its opinion that the pleadings
of the Plaintiffs and the pleadings of Eagle Rock Ranch, the cross-plaintiffs, showed on their face that Conso Realty Company
and Edward C. James had parted with their title and interest in the land, long before Plaintiffs' or Cross Plaintiffs' suit
was filed, and both Petitions showed on the face of each, that it was moot as against these Appellants as a suit for the recovery
of an interest in land. This Honorable Court did not even mention the fact that these Appellants were dragged into court through
a nonexistent suit for the recovery of title to lands as against them, solely and only for the purpose of holding venue for
the trial of a million dollar suit for damages out of the County of the residence of these Appellants, without attempting
to put the fraud claim in issue on the venue hearing. The Petition as a whole should have been discussed by the Court, and
this Court could not have escaped the conclusion that the principal purpose of Plaintiffs' suit against these Defendants was
not to remove cloud, but a suit for damages, and that the character of the lawsuit as a whole governs the matter of venue.