Court Opinion

ID: 9830409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:11:23.423179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:21.669508
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The majority adhere to the view that the failure of appellant to comply with the provisions of chapter 59, Acts 33d Leg., precludes a consideration upon the merits of the assignments, all of which relate to the action of the court in giving a peremptory instruction in favor of appellee. It has heretofore been held by this and other Courts of Civil ' Appeals that the act in question applies to a peremptory instruction. Railway Co. v. Wheat (Ft. Worth) 173 S. W. 974; Needham v. Cooney (El Paso) 173 S. W. 979; Railway Co. v. Feldman (Austin) 170 S. W. 133; Case v. Folsom (Dallas) 170 S. W. 1066; Bohn v. Burton Lingo Co. (El Paso) 175 S. W. 173; Wickizer v. Williams (Austin) 173 S. W. 288; Railway Co. v. Wilson (Texar.) 176 S. W. 619; Denison, etc., v. McAmis (Texar.) 176 S. W. 621; Railway Co. v. Barnes (Ft. Worth) 168 S. W. 991; Elser v. Putnam (Ft. Worth) 171 S. W. 1052. See, also, Gestean v. Bishop, 180 S. W. 302, and McKenzie v. Irrigation Co., 166 S. W. 497, holding that a fundamental error may be waived. 'Chief Justice HARPER, however, is of the opinion that the giving of a peremptory instruction raises a question of fundamental error, and that the correctness of giving the charge should be reviewed whether or not there has been a compliance with the provisions of the act mentioned. In this respect he concurs in the view of the Amarillo court, as expressed in Hovey v. Sanders, 174 S. W. 1026; Owens v. Petroleum Co., 169 S. W. 192; Henderson et al v. Gilbert, 171 S. W. 304; Neville v. Miller, 171 S. W. 1109.
Considering appellant’s assignments upon their merits, Judge HARPER is of opinion that they present no error, and concurs in the view that the cause was properly affirmed. Judge HIGGINS and Judge WAL-THALL are likewise of opinion that the assignments, if considered upon their merits, would of necessity be overruled as being without merit. The entire court, therefore, concurs in the view that the cause was properly affirmed, and that the motion for rehearing should be overruled; and it is so ordered.