Court Opinion

ID: 9833540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:48:31.303524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:04.083808
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It is earnestly insisted that we were in error in holding that the trial court properly admitted the testimony set out in the original opinion. Appellant cites us to the case of Ohilson v. Oheim, 171 S. W. 1074, the opinion in which was rendered by the Court of Civil Appeals, Second Supreme Judicial District, October 31, 1914. A copy of that opinion has been furnished us by appellant. We do not think that case in point on the issues here involved. That court held certain checks not admissible, which had been given by Chil-' son to one Moore, who was the tenant of Ohilson, and who had been furnished the item sued for by O’Heim, which Chilson had promised to pay. The cheeks were held not admissible because falling under the rule excluding testimony res inter alios acta. Such is not the nature of the testimony here. The declarations here admitted were facts or statements between the parties to the contract. True one of the parties purported to quote the price for which feed pens could be had elsewhere, but he used this price as a means to procure the agreement as he contended it was; at least it was a circumstance tending to show that fact.
Appellant apparently overlooks the fact that the price for which pens could be obtained elsewhere was made a part of the negotiations between the parties at the time of making the oral contract in question. Neither do we think our statements in the former opinion in conflict with the cases of Carver v. Power State Bank, 164 S. W. 892; Paine v. Argyle, etc., Co., 133 S. W. 895; Kocher v. Mayberry, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 342, 39 S. W. 604. We did not hold that in no case could the value of pens elsewhere be shown if the suit was one for the reasonable value of the pens, but we said that, if this had been a suit for its value instead of the contract price, the objection made might then have been tenable. We referred to the “objection” that the same conditions were not shown at the other places, and not to the fact that “value” under the proper predicate could be proven. We refer to this matter for the reason that appellant appears to misconstrue our views as we tried to express them, and to prevent a like construction by others. This identical testimony, the admission of which was assigned as error, was given by Goode upon his redirect examination, without exception thereto, and is in this record without objection. For this reason, as well as for the reasons heretofore given, we adhere to our former holding.
[3] Appellant urgently insists on its second assignment of error in its motion for rehearing, and urges that we should hold the action of the court, in admitting the testimony complained of, as error. We saw no necessity for discussing or deciding the rule on the question of practice presented by the assignment, as we then found that no injury could have resulted to appellant therefrom. The matter complained of in the second assignment relates to the answer of the witness A. D. Wilson to the sixth interrogatory, in his deposition, taken the 2d day of August, 1913, and also his answer to the sixth interrogatory, taken July 17, 1912, both of which were offered by the plaintiff, appellee herein. The latter interrogatory and answer thereto had been therefore read in evidence by the defendant, appellant herein. It was stated by appellant’s counsel, at the time the two answers were offered, that they were offered for the purposes of impeaching the witness. The principal objection to such action was that a proper predicate had not been laid; that it *287was immaterial, etc. The question in the second. deposition asked the witness if he heard a conversation between appellee and A. C. Hall, the manager of appellant, at the house of Hall, in Memphis, Tex., with reference to appellant company furnishing pens for the cattle, etc., and, if so, state what it was. In answer to the question in the first deposition, “I heard such a conversation;” and then testified that the price agreed upon for the use of the pens, etc., was 60 cents per head per month. In the second deposition he answered, “Yes, I heard a portion of such conversation; I heard the latter part of this conversation;” and proceeded to give what each said with reference to the price, and gave the price as agreed upon for the pens the same as that stated in answer to the first deposition. The appellee claimed that the impeaching part of the statement, or the contradiction therein, was in saying in one that he heard such a conversation and in the other that he heard a part or the latter part of the conversation. When the interrogatories are considered in connection with the answer, there was no contradiction. In both questions the matter sought was to get at the conversation or agreement as to the price of the pens. The fact that appellee’s counsel contended that one impeached the other, and that he offered it for the purpose of impeachment, did not make it impeaching testimony. The evidence offered by appellee operated to the benefit of appellant. The jury could not have found that one impeached the other. The trial court doubtless regarded the evidence as being in the interest of appellant and as proving the issue contended for by appellant. The testimony, if considered by the jury, could not possibly have injured the appellant. The jury was not warranted in disregarding the evidence because of any contradictory statement in the two answers. There is none as is apparent when the questions and answers are read together. There was nothing in either of the answers that discredited the witness. Simply because a lawyer asserts black is white, we will not presume a jury accepted such a statement as true when the evidence is that it is black.
[4] If, therefore, the court was in error in admitting the two interrogatories and the answers thereto, it was not necessarily a material one. Railway Co. v. Bath & Co., 17 Tex. Civ. App. 697, 44 S. W. 595; Brewster v. State, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 1, 88 S. W. 858; Railway Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 91 S. W. 855, 359. The admission or exclusion of evidence tending to strengthen the theory of the complaining party should not reverse the case upon the complaint of appellant. Ingalls v. Orange Lumber Co., 56 Tex. Civ. App. 543, 122 S. W. 53. We cannot believe the admission of the testimony, of which complaint is here made, could possibly have injured the appellant. The testimony in this case we think amply sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury, aside from Goode’s testimony of the terms of _ the contract made with Hall for appellant. Appellant, after Hall had made the contract, sent to appellee a telegram confirming the contract, and, as we interpret the message, it recognized the contract as sworn to by the appellee, especially so when interpreted in the light of the facts proven surrounding the transaction.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.