Case ID: sw_289/html/0994-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SPEER, J. CURETON, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CRAWFORD v. EL PASO SASH & DOOR CO. et al.
    (Motion No. 7356.)
    (Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.
    Jan. 12, 1927.)
    1. Appeal and error <§=>987(1) — Commission of Appeals has no jurisdiction to weigh evidence, which is question of fact.
    Weighing of evidence is question of fact, over which Commission of Appeals has no jurisdiction, and opinion reciting that Commission of Appeals finds nothing to require reversal1 of judgment of trial court refers only to questions of law.
    2. Appeal1 and error <®=llf4 — Commission of Appeals should remand cause to Court of Civil Appeals, where issues of fact were raised but not decided.
    Where Court of Civil Appeals does not pass on assignments of error, complaining of sufficiency of evidence to support verdict, Commission of Appeals should remand cause to Court of Civil Appeals to enable it to pass on fact issue raised and not decided, rather than affirm judgment of district court.
    On motion for rehearing. Former opinion modified, rehearing granted, and cause remanded to Court of Civil Appeals, with.directions.
    For former opinion, see 288 S. W. 169.
   SPEER, J.

On the original hearing we reversed the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and affirmed that of the district court. We should have remanded the ease to the Court of Civil Appeals for that court’s action on the assignments of error complaining of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. It requires no citation of authorities to show that the weighing of the evidence is a question of fact over which we have no jurisdiction, and there is an assignment of error sufficient to raise this question, not passed upon by the Court of Civil Appeals. Our expression in the original opinion, “we find nothing to require a reversal of the judgment of the trial court,” must of course be considered as referring to questions of law which we were called upon to consider.

We recommend that the motion for rehearing be granted to the extent of remanding the cause to the Court of Civil Appeals to enable that court to pass upon the fact issues raised and not decided by it and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. ‘

CURETON, C. J.

Motion for rehearing granted, and the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and cause remanded to the court Of Civil Appeals, as recommended by the Commission of Appeals. 
      Cg^Por other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes