Court Opinion

ID: 9833584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:51:13.513281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:04.622619
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[6, 7] On motion for rehearing, appellant insists, with much force, that we erred in our ruling upon its fourth assignment of error. It is insisted that the twelfth paragraph of the court’s charge on the negligence of appellee’s agents in charge of the cattle, in so far as such negligence caused or contributed to the injury to the cattle, as affecting the right of recovery, presents a different issue from that referred to in the assignment, which was not the negligence of such agents, but their failure to perform the contract obligation of appellee in this particular. There is some force in appellant’s contention, as presented in the motion for rehearing; but we think it is sufficient answer to it that the assignment does not complain of any error of the trial court in refusing a requested charge on this issue, but of the omission of the trial court to charge on the issue. That this was not affirmative error is, we think, well settled. If appellant desired to avail himself of this omission, it should have requested a special charge, and, in case of its refusal, assigned error upon such refusal. It is true that in the assignment and in the statement thereunder in its brief reference is made to such requested charge, but merely incidentally to the assignment, which is based solely upon the failure or omission in the charge of the court. Undef such assignment, we could not properly have considered any error there may have been in the refusal of the requested charge. It was held by the Supreme Court, in Searcy v. Grant, 90 Tex. 101, 37 S. W. 320, construing article 1018, R. S., that an appellate court would not take cognizance of any error, not assigned, unless it be fundamental, or an error apparent upon the •face of the record. It will not be contended that this was such error.
With this addition to our opinion, the motion for rehearing is overruled. We must not be understood as holding that there may not be cases where the mere omission to present fundamental issues would be affirmative error.
Overruled.