Court Opinion

ID: 9827237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:18:48.097423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:27.237436
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee contended upon the original hearing that appellant was not in position to attack .the trial .court’s findings of fact because no exception thereto was taken. The proposition is not well taken, and we overruled it without comment. The same' contention is reiterated in appellee’s motion for rehearing. It is now well settled by a long line of cases that:
“The judgment of the court, on trial without a jury, having been excepted to (as was done in this case) it was not necessary that exception be also taken to the conclusions of law and fact in order to secure their review on appeal under due assignments of error.” Voight v. Mackle, 71 Tex. 78; Engineering Co. v. Turney, 203 S. W. 593, 109 Tex. 208; Thompson v. State, 56 S. W. 603, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 370; Bond v. Garrison, 127 S. W. 839, 59 Tex. Civ. App. 620; Brenton v. Peck, 87 S. W. 904, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 224; Connellee v. Roberts, 23 S. W. 189, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 419; Savage v. Umphries (Tex. Civ. App.) 118 S. W. 908; Life Ass’n v. Green (Tex. Civ. App.) 109 S. W. 1133.
The other grounds of the motion are sufficiently covered in our original opinion.
The motion is overruled.
Overruled.