Court Opinion

ID: 9829620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:28:52.621693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:03.549625
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In the light of appellant’s motion for a rehearing this entire case has been reviewed. Her bill of exceptions as embodied in the statement of facts fails, we think, to show clear-cut objection to Mrs. Keene’s testimony as to the contents of the deed in question on the ground of an inadequate predicate.
Mrs. Keene was first asked if she or the other defendants had in their possession a deed executed by Mrs. Maude Dabney under date of about March or April, 1927, conveying Lots 9 and 10, Block “I,” in the town of Sonora — “the property where you are now living” ?
Her answer: “I do not have a deed.”
Then she was asked if she and the other defendants had made a search for the deed.
She answered: “We did.”
Appellant interposed an objection after the answer because it was not plead. Asked if she had been able to find it she replied that she had not. The same objection was urged — i. e., lack of pleading. She was asked:
“Mrs. Keene, have you ever seen that deed?”
Her answer was: “I did.”
Appellant’s counsel then stated:
“We object to that as calling for a conclusion of the witness and no proper predicate laid nor showing to authorize proof of lost instrument. The question asked for a conclusion of the witness and that invades the province of the jury and of the court.”
Appellant’s counsel then stated:
“I will admit that neither of the other defendants has seen the deed or had it, but will not waive the objection as made.”
The following question was propounded:
“On or about March or April, 1927, did your husband, who was then living, bring to you and show to you an instrument purporting to be signed by Mrs. 'Dabney ?”
Her answer: “He did.”
*686Whereupon counsel for appellant stated:
“The plaintiff objects to that because it is hearsay, ex parte, and for all the reasons made to the previous questions,”
which objection was overruled. Witness stated that she read the instrument. Counsel for appellant said:
“Note oiir same objections to all of this.”
The witness was asked:
“What was it the instrument said?”
She answered:
“It was left to us as a home.”
Counsel objected in the following words:
“We object to all of this.”
There was no ruling on this objection and the witness answered further:
“And at his death it was to go to our children — Katha Lea and Doris.”
She was asked:
“Was that instrument in form and language of a deed?”
This objection was urged:
“We object to that because it calls for her conclusion. She can state what she read.”
This question was then propounded:
“Just state what that instrument said.”
Counsel for appellant stated:
“We make the same objection to that.”
The objection was overruled, and the witness answered as follows:
“It — of course, it was typewritten the way of a deed; a lot of legal terms in there, like the deed you read awhile ago— those legal terms, and states it is to be our home, and at his death it was to go to us— or our children, Katha Lea and Doris. It didn’t mention me at all.”
The last preceding objection of counsel was:
“We object to that because it calls for a conclusion. She can state what she read.”
She further said:
“It said his children and named them— Katha Lea and Doris; it was signed by Mrs. Dabney, and mentioned Lots 9 and 10, Block T. It mentioned those lots and home down there. I can’t word it because I wouldn’t remember.”
To none of this testimony as to the contents of the deed was even the general objection urged that there was no adequate predicate laid for its admission. If the holding be error that a general objection was insufficient, the testimony as narrated above was admitted without objection as to adequate predicate. This it is thought would render the error, if such there was, harmless. In any event appellant’s objections were insufficient to clearly point out to the trial court the objections urged. This verdict finds ample support in the evidence.
There is no reversible error shown, and the Motion for Rehearing is in all things overruled.