Court Opinion

ID: 9652994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:36:43.803769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:55.723004
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In their motion for rehearing, appellants raise several questions in regard to this Court’s original opinion. We have thoroughly considered each of these points, including the evidentiary challenges and our legal interpretation of case law, and find no error in our original holding.
Appellants also request that this Court file “conclusions of fact” in regard to the jury findings as to 1) the fair market value of the converted stock and 2) the appellants’ unreasonable refusal to transfer the stock. Rules 453, 455, T.R.C.P. (1980). The rule is well-settled that courts of civil appeals have no jurisdiction to make original findings of fact in cases on appeal; they can only “unfind” facts. City of Beaumont v. Graham, 441 S.W.2d 829 (Tex.Sup.1969); Jon-T Farms, Inc. v. Goodpasture, Inc., 554 S.W.2d 743, 753 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1977, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Moore v. Copeland, 478 S.W.2d 573 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1972, writ ref’d n. r. e.). In holding that the original jury findings have sufficient support in the evidence, we deem it unnecessary to file additional findings of fact.
Appellants’ motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.
BISSETT, J., not participating.