Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

GEORGIA JARRETT, ET AL, v. J.W. Ross.

Slander of Title — Abandonment — Malice.

Where plaintiff brings an action for damages for slander of title, but before trial abandoned their allegations that defendant acted with malice, they thereby abandoned their cause of action because malice is a necessary element in such an action.

MR. JUDGE HICKMAN delivered the opinion of the Commission of Appeals, Section A.

In the trial court plaintiffs in error, Georgia Jarrett and others, were awarded judgment for damages against defendant in error, J.W. Ross, in an action which was in form one of slander of title. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause. 146 S.W.2d 219.

When the writ of error was granted it was thought that questions involving the law of slander of title were involved, but upon a more mature consideration of the record it has been determined that no cause of action for damages for slander of title was pleaded. Before trial the plaintiffs abandoned all allegations of their petition, express or implied, that the defendant acted with malice. The effect thereof was to abandon their alleged cause of action for damages for slander of title, for malice is a necessary element of such an action. Humble Oil Refining Co. v. McLean (Com. App.) 280 S.W. 557; Stovall v. Texas Co., 262 S.W. 152 (error refused); 33 Am. Jur., Libel and Slander, sec. 348.

Plaintiffs seek to uphold the judgment of the trial court upon the doctrine of Humble Oil Refining Co. v. Kishi (Com. App.) 276 S.W. 190, 291 S.W. 538, 299 S.W. 687. The petition failed to allege a trespass by defendant and an ouster by him of plaintiffs in denial of their rights. Absent such allegations, the doctrine involved is not applicable. Shell Oil Co. v. Howth, 138 Tex. 357, 159 S.W.2d 483.

Since the case must be retried, it becomes unnecessary for us to consider any other question discussed by the Court of Civil Appeals.

The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversing and remanding the case is affirmed.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court July 1, 1942.

Rehearing October 7, 1942.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

JARRETT v. ROSS
(Jul 1, 1942)