*1 281 e.), as to interference awith business rela Holloway, Bankers Insurance Co. v. Life tionship. 567, (Tex.1963); The evidence shows that it was 368 S.W.2d 581 16 AM. after closing (1979). the real estate Conspiracy the de JUR.2d §§ fendants learned of the Crow/Ramos con respecting the conclusions the failure tract. proof Associates, in the Steinmetz and Inc., Austin-Fagan-DeBois,
There is no evidence supporting an action and Mat- against appeals thews are correct and Steinmetz on interference evidence with support jury finding judg- does not and relationship grounds. business ment, necessarily, the evidence is likewise legally factually and support insufficient to AUSTIN-FAGAN-DUBOIS, INC. AND conspiracy finding and JAMES 0. MATTHEWS APPEAL Matthews is sole corpora- owner of the RECAPITULATION tion; disregard discussion will the corpo- announced, In view of the conclusions rate position fiction. Matthews’ is not and because our determination of no evi- identical with that of Steinmetz and Associ- dence includes a determination of insuffi- ates, respect knowledge Inc. with evidence, cient factual the Steinmetz and 5, February Crow/Ramos contract of 1981. Associates, three, four, points Inc. of error But for the reasons in disposing discussed nine, ten, eleven, twenty-three twenty- of the knowledge issue in the Steinmetz Likewise, points four are sustained. Associates, appeal, Inc. dispo- a similar three, four, eleven, twelve, error twenty- sition must be made of the issue as it three, twenty-four, twenty-nine, thirty and affects Matthews. The evidence pertaining thirty-seven by Austin-Fagan-Du- briefed Matthews, on final analysis, legally Bois, Inc. and are Matthews sustained. factually insufficient to proof Failure indispensable of an ele- jury finding that Matthews knew or should pled requires ment of the actions reversal. have known of the Crow/Ramos contract Therefore, judgment of the trial court the time he Austin-Fagan- is reversed and rendered that DuBois, Inc./Ramos contract to Steinmetz nothing by Crow take his suit. Associates, Inc. Also the tortious in- terference relationship with business disposed
be of in the same manner and for
the reason discussed the Steinmetz and
Associates, appeal. Inc.
We further find that even a cause of action for tortious interference with a WARD, Ux, Individually Robert A. Et proved, contract had been and as Next Friend for John Aaron malice was made. This would be Ward, Relators, recovery punitive damages. See v. e.g., Underwriters Insurance Bellefonte CORNYN, The Honorable John Brown, (Tex. Co. S.W.2d Respondent. App. writ ref’d [14th Dist.] —Houston n.r.e.); Morris v. Corp., Jordan Financial supra, at 184. Appeals Court San Antonio. CONSPIRACY actionable, To be conspiracy civil Rehearing Denied Dec. accomplished must be unlawful in itself or conspiracy unlawful means. Such con against sists of acts which are actionable
conspirators individually. International
This July case was set for trial on parte 1985. On June an ex hear- ing held before the Honorable James Onion. No notice of this had C. to the defendants. been sent apparently sign did not a formal order but merely signature affixed his responses. supplemental mental These re- sponses part made a of this have Humana, However, defendant, record. admits in its brief that doing signed responses, and that filing for late supplemental responses. strike The defendants filed a motion to supplemental responses with the siding judge, Cornyn. the Honorable John parties appeared All at the held arguments were which made of apparently heard. No record was hearings. any of the various mo- Judge Cornyn granted defendants’ Jr., Antonio, Gittinger, Leonard J. San strike, subsequent- respondents tion to for relators. ly filed motion to reconsider on which Eades, Plunkett, & Marilyn G. Gibson July conducted on Antonio, Dubois, Allen and Allan San petition and this This motion was denied respondent. followed. for mandamus a clear will not issue unless Mandamus CADENA, C.J., Before and CANTU and Jampole v. of discretion is shown. DIAL, JJ. (Tex.1984). Touchy, 673 S.W.2d in this manda- From the state of the record FOR WRIT ON RELATORS’ PETITION that there proceeding, mus we cannot hold OF MANDAMUS No state- a clear abuse of discretion. CADENA, Chief Justice. brought forward. of facts has ment original proceeding. This an mandamus complete do not have We therefore Relators moved for and were Judge Cornyn had before record of what seeking of manda- petition to file a a writ find- facts or a statement of him. Absent Cornyn, commanding mus Honorable John law, this ings fact and conclusions of Bexar Judge of the 131st District Court all trial court made court will assume the his order County, to set aside and cancel its necessary findings granting defendants’ “motion to strike and Gutierrez, 643 S.W.2d Gutierrez v. to reinstate an order protective order” and 1982, writ). (Tex.App. Antonio —San supplemental re- granting leave to file mandamus. deny the writ of therefore We sponses. of the Texas Rules Civil Justice, concurring. CANTU, of court Procedure that leave proceeding dem- mandamus The instant party seeks when a cause be obtained present defect onstrates a blatant responses to con- supplement handling pretrial matters system of cerning expert witnesses within county. multijudicial district days prior to trial.
What at one time simple seemed a at- courts of Bexar County, Texas. See also tempt 166b(5)(b) comply 199(37) with Rule of the TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. Texas Rules of (Vernon Civil Procedure has dete- Supp.1985). The relators filed a judicial riorated into a carousel and has motion to reconsider which was heard and encouraged judge shopping. by Judge Cornyn July overruled *3 pertinent part provides: provisions Under the of the local rules party expects presiding judge disposes
If the the expert to call an of non-contest- identity witness when the ed matters subject necessity setting or the without expert matter of such testimony any judge already witness’ or district court not en- has not previously gaged disclosed in re- in an may case hear the sponse appropriate to an inquiry directly matter. Leave to file late under Rule 166b matters, addressed to these such re- a of cause order sponse supplemented must be to include imposition to avoid the of severe sanctions name, the address telephone number when is found subject to be the expert of the witness and the substance 215(5). of abuse. TEX.R.CIV.P. See of the concerning which the The granting to file late expert is expected testify, witness to as by Judge mentation implied Onion was an practical, as is soon but in no event less court, finding by that exercise days than prior begin- to the discretion, sound that sanctions were not ning except of trial court. required. We are not favored with a tran- 20, 1985, twenty-five On June days some scription proceedings Judge before prior trial, sought scheduled relators Onion, presumably preserved none was supplement prior to interrogato- answers to by reporter, any a court if was in fact requiring ries the prospective disclosure of taken. expert medical witnesses. The The order entered Onion was supplemental response presented to pursuant entered to the local rules and as Judge James C. Onion for his consideration by (h). authorized 330(g), It grant on whether to leave to file less than was, therefore, binding upon valid and thirty days prior Judge to trial. parties upon any judge hearing signa- discretion affixed his subsequent matters in the case unless it be ture indicating that he leave to file by shown that the order was entered a in accordance with Rule 166b. We are power court without to do so. advised that no was held before require Because Rules 166b and 215 Judge Onion and that no evidence was con- discretion, ought exercise a court not be by sidered in arriving at his permitted retry delving by to a matter into decision. Undoubtedly escape it not did question by discretion a court party Onion that the real in interest jurisdiction. Such matters any would not suffer prejudice by allowing appropriately are more the function of an supplementation twenty-five days prior to appellate appeal by court either on or writ trial. Such was the state of the matter at alleged. of mandamus when clear abuse is the time and no for apparent consideration of such facts. I do for one minute doubt the real party right in interest’s obtain review On June party real inter- ruling by Judge Onion in this court. It supplemen- est filed a motion to strike the was, however, apparently more convenient response. tal The motion court, presiding or to seek review from the 26, 1985, by the Honorable John Cor- practice so it seems. I do not believe such nyn acting as the judge for the Rather, it promotes judicial economy. district courts in Be- civil matters seem, encourages judge shopping. would it procedure adopted by xar under a as the orders of May various effective Inasmuch Judge Cornyn interlocutory, and referred to as the district are both rules of the Nevertheless, I aside Onion’s order. presumably the aside or reinstate- prece- accomplished ad think this court’s action is may ment of either still be inevitably return to long appealable dent which haunt infinitum so as a final accompa- are when and a statement of facts judgment has not been entered. We application has nies an by parties that the ease informed both assigned to trial happens upon called we will be subject stay entered the merits decide what standard of review Cor- disposition of rela- by pending this court nyn by overruling Judge was bound On- for writ of mandamus. tors’ Judge Cornyn’s ion and whether action is a discretion, his if in fact he A denial of the clear abuse of writ authority upon Judge any. would feel more comfortable sumably confers holding had no discre- disposing of the matter on ion to commence already adjudi- suppose to set aside tion to exercise matter the merits and *4 by judge jurisdiction cated of coordinate Gornyn’s order aside the order through its discretion. supplementation. granting leave to file late 330(h). If the order entered binding effect Where is the valid rethinking, Judge contemplated Rule 330? motion to Cornyn should have to consider the mer- majority The refuses Onion for reconsidera- strike back a statement its of the because discretionary Any dis- tion of its exercise. developed of facts at the June ruling satisfaction with provided has not been us. Assum- Any can then be directed available, of facts had ing a statement procedure purpose defeats the could it have been shown that how in judgeship alluded to article granting abused his discretion reluctantly concur and Rule it is that no leave to file when conceded of mandamus. denial of the writ from transcription available Cornyn’s is hearing. ion’s validity presumption
entitled to Onion’s, so is more
regularity, it was first time.
because disturbing me is this court’s
More of coordinate
willingness permit play games with the civil jurisdiction to CHILDRE, Appellant, D.A. guise Bexar under dockets of court reconsid- actually the same that it in truth and in prior order while ering its LIFE INSUR GREAT SOUTHWEST sit jurisdiction fact courts Corporation ANCE COMPANY exercise of discre- of each other’s Southwest, Appellees. Great tion. refrain from as- court should While this Appeals of Court of trial courts supervisory role over
suming Dallas. the function of clearly within in matters courts, to exer- should not hesitate those 31, 1985. system below role when the cise usurpation through erroneous breaks down power. transcription of without a agree developed on June say that cannot his discretion clearly abused