Court Opinion

ID: 9674455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:29:01.583508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:27.732527
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
The Appellant in its motion for rehearing states that the Court erred in the quote from the letter of the manager of the Credit Union to Appellee, dated February 26, 1970, and suggests that the letter made mention of “written permission.” Counsel apparently has not reviewed that letter recently. Our quote was the exact language used in the letter, and the letter makes no mention whatsoever of “written permission.”
The motion for rehearing also urges that the Court erred in overruling Appellant’s Point One because it was based upon the overruling of his motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. Clearly, such is not the case. Point One from the brief for the Appellant is as follows:
*901“The trial Court erred as a matter of law in failing to grant Defendant’s Motion for an instructed verdict.”
In the statement under that point on pages 7 through 9 of the brief, there is absolutely no mention of a motion non ob-stante veredicto. In the argument under that point on pages 9 through 16, there is absolutely no mention of a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. In the argument under Point One, it is noted on page 15 of the brief that at the conclusion of the trial Appellant requested an instructed verdict, which was denied, and on page 16 of the brief, it is submitted that the trial Court erred as a matter of law in not granting Defendant’s motion for an instructed verdict at the conclusion of the testimony in the case. Thus, we believe, that the point and the argument are all directed to the action of the trial Court in overruling a motion for instructed verdict, and as stated in the original opinion, any error in that regard has not been preserved for appellate review.
Even if the point had stated that the trial Court erred in failing to grant Defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, rather than stating as it did that there was error in failing to grant Defendant’s motion for instructed verdict, the point still would not have been proper. Such a point is too general and does not specify the specific error complained about on appeal. This exact issue was before the Court in Tindall v. Tacconelly, 328 S.W.2d 909 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1959, writ ref’d n. r. e.), where Justice Pope writing for the Court said:
“ * * * The single point urged here, which is grounded upon and germane to the order overruling the motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, states: ‘The trial court erred in overruling Defendants’ motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.’ The rule requires a point to refer to the ‘particular error relied upon.’ Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. v. McFerrin, 156 Tex. 69, 291 S.W.2d 931, 941. In United States Liability Ins. Co. v. Baggett, Tex.Civ.App., 285 S.W.2d 804, 807, the same point was urged and the Court considered it too general saying: ‘If we attempted to write upon the same, we would have to write upon each of the numerous points set out in the motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, and the point would then become multifarious.’ Accord, Pride v. Pride, Tex.Civ.App., 318 S.W.2d 715, 720. * * * ”
To the same effect are the holdings in United States Liability Insurance Company v. Baggett, 285 S.W.2d 804 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1955, writ ref’d n. r. e.), and International Security Life Insurance Company v. Robichau, 510 S.W.2d 132 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1974, no writ).
We have considered the remainder of the motion for rehearing and find it to be without merit.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.