Court Opinion

ID: 9764670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:35:38.157848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:00.205023
License: Public Domain

On Motion for'Rehearing
NORVELL, Justice.
Appellee has filed herein an able and exhaustive motion for rehearing. We have again carefully examined the record in the light of this motion but remain of the opinion that our original disposition of- this cause is correct. We shall not further add to the lengthy opinion filed in this cause other than to say, with reference to ap-pellee’s contention that this cause should be remanded rather' than rendered, that Rule 301 provides for the rendition of a judgment non obstante veredicto’ under circumstances set forth therein. Rule 324 provides that, “when the judgment is rendered non obstante veredicto, or notwithstanding the jury finding on one or more special issues, the appellee may complain of any prejudicial error committed against him over his objection on such trial.”
With reference to this language contained in the rule, the Supreme Court in Le Master v. Ft. Worth Transit Co., 138 Tex. 512, 160 S.W.2d 224, 227, said, “We interpret the above-quoted provision to mean that where on appeal the appellate court determines that judgment non obstante veredicto was erroneously entered, such court will reverse the judgment of the trial court and enter judgment in harmony with the verdict * * *. The filing of points of error by the appellee will be treated as a necessary prerequisite to the right to have such errors considered on appeal. It will be sufficient for the appellee to present his points of error in ihis brief. Rules 374, 418(b), 420.”
In this case we have determined that no showing vitiating the jury’s findings has been made and that such findings, together *241with undisputed facts, call for the rendition of a judgment for appellant. During the course of our opinion, we stated that certain points presented by appellant (had no proper record basis in that the submission of certain issues had not been requested by appellee. This was intended as a statement of the actual condition of the record and should not 'be construed as an indication that the case was not fully developed. On the contrary, the hearing of the evidence, in accordance with the pleadings, the trial theory of defense and the issues requested in the court below, appears to have- been thoroughgoing and complete. Upon the record it was our duty to r.ender judgment upon the verdict, that is, to render such judgment as the trial court should have rendered. Rule 434.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
POPE, J., not participating.