Court Opinion

ID: 9832160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:40:42.162953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:43.172568
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Both parties to this cause have filed motions for rehearing. After carefully considering them, that of appellee has been refused, while appellant’s has been granted, upon the conclusion that in one particular it is well taken.
[5, 6] Upon a re-examination of the statement of facts, we conclude that, under a fair construction, and despite its meagerness in some respects, the evidence upon the whole was sufficient to raise the issue as to whether or not some of the damage to the onion sets occurred before they came upon appellant’s line, and, if it did, to require a finding apportioning the same accordingly; by appropriate procedure during the trial, appellant requested the submission of these matters to the jury, but the court declined to do so, which action, we now think, without entering into a discussion of the testimony, constituted error for which the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for another trial.
The statements in our former opinion that “there was no suggestion in the evidence that the car was even rained on.after thus leaving Oswego in dry and good condition until after it came upon appellant’s lines at Sherman, Tex.,” and that there were no circumstances tending to show the occurrence of either rain or damage between Oswego and a connection with appellant’s lines ,at Sherman, being therefore somewhat inaccurate, must be modified as herein indicated.
In other respects, it is not deemed necessary to add anything to or take anything from our original opinion. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted, our former judgment set aside, and the cause remanded.