Court Opinion

ID: 9829101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:59:14.956377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:57.211472
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant’s cqunsel have filed a very able and exhaustive motion for a rehearing, attacking our opinion upon the same grounds asserted originally. We do not recede from our former position, but, in view of appellant’s severe attack upon our use of rule 62a as applied to his th'ird proposition, we undertake to state an additional main reason why the introduction of the testimony complained of does' not constitute error. The record discloses that another wit*678ness had, without objection, testified to the same matter, and the introduction of the testimony under such circumstances cannot be the basis of error.
We also undertake to state an additional reason why appellant’s fourth and ninth propositions are not well taken, in view of appellant’s attack upon our holding thereon. Newton Sanders, the only surviving parent, by filing this suit as next friend of his minor son, and by seeking a recovery for his said minor son of damages for the loss of time and diminished earning capacity during minority, would be and is estop-ped to seek a recovery for such items of damages thereafter for himself. Hale v. McKenzie (Tex. Civ. App.) 198 S. W. 1004. Such acts and pleadings on the part of Newton Sanders, the sole surviving parent, is tantamount to a gift to his minor son of any claim or interest he may have in these items of damages, and he would thereafter be precluded from % asserting any claim therefor. This rule, of course, would not apply in cases where the suit was brought by a next friend other than the surviving parent or parents of the minor.
We are of the Opinion that the motion for a rehearing should be overruled; and it is so ordered.
Motion overruled.