From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chesshir v. First State Bank

Supreme Court of Texas
Sep 16, 1981
620 S.W.2d 101 (Tex. 1981)

Summary

holding court of appeals erred when it did not consider appellees' conversion action even though it was urged for the first time on rehearing after appellate court reversed judgment in appellees' favor

Summary of this case from Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Schleider

Opinion

No. C-291.

July 15, 1981. Rehearing Denied September 16, 1981.

Appeal from the District Court, No. 154, Lamb County, Pat Boone, Jr., J.

George E. Gilkerson, Ralph H. Brock, Lubbock, for petitioners.

James Walker, Morton, for respondent.


O. D. Chesshir and his wife, Donletti Chesshir, sued the First State Bank, Morton, Texas, to recover damages for the Bank's disposition of their certificate of deposit contrary to their alleged agreement. The Chesshirs alleged a cause of action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), Tex.Bus. Comm Code Ann. § 17.41 et seq., and an alternative cause of action for conversion. Judgment in favor of the Chesshirs and against the Bank was rendered on the jury's verdict that the Bank's actions violated the DTPA. The court of civil appeals reversed the trial court judgment and rendered judgment that the Chesshirs take nothing by virtue of their DTPA action, holding that the Chesshirs were not "consumers" in the certificate of deposit transaction. 613 S.W.2d 61.

In their motion for rehearing to the court of civil appeals, the Chesshirs argued that the judgment of the trial court should be modified and rendered in their favor on their alternative cause of action for conversion. The court of civil appeals did not review the Chesshirs' right to recover on their conversion claim, apparently because this theory was not advanced in their reply brief. The Chesshirs complain here of the court of civil appeal's failure to consider this alternative cause of action.

In McKelvy v. Barber, 381 S.W.2d 59 (Tex. 1964), we excused a respondent from carrying forward a cross-point in his reply brief which was aimed toward a judgment less favorable to him than the one he received in the court of civil appeals. Similarly, in Tanner Development Co. v. Ferguson, 561 S.W.2d 777 (Tex. 1977), we considered the points argued by respondent in his brief to the court of civil appeals but not argued in this Court until respondent filed his motion for rehearing. Accord: Campbell v. Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co., 573 S.W.2d 496 (Tex. 1978); Taggart v. Taggart, 552 S.W.2d 422 (Tex. 1977).

The failure of the court of civil appeals to consider the Chesshirs' arguments on conversion is in conflict with the rule of McKelvy v. Barber, supra. Pursuant to the authority conferred by Tex.R.Civ.Pro. 483, we grant petitioners' writ of error and without hearing oral argument we reverse the judgment of the court of civil appeals and remand the cause to that court for consideration of the conversion cause of action.


Summaries of

Chesshir v. First State Bank

Supreme Court of Texas
Sep 16, 1981
620 S.W.2d 101 (Tex. 1981)

holding court of appeals erred when it did not consider appellees' conversion action even though it was urged for the first time on rehearing after appellate court reversed judgment in appellees' favor

Summary of this case from Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Schleider

holding court of appeals erred when it did not consider appellees' conversion action even though it was urged for the first time on rehearing after appellate court reversed judgment in appellee's favor

Summary of this case from Beal Bank v. Schleider
Case details for

Chesshir v. First State Bank

Case Details

Full title:O. D. CHESSHIR et ux., Petitioners, v. FIRST STATE BANK OF MORTON, TEXAS…

Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: Sep 16, 1981

Citations

620 S.W.2d 101 (Tex. 1981)

Citing Cases

Hansen v. Academy Corp.

However, if an appellee receives a favorable judgment and is satisfied with it, the appellee need not file…

Boyce Iron Works, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

However, that rule does not apply in this case because Boyce received a favorable judgment and had no reason…