Court Opinion

ID: 9832694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:06:38.96763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:50.223871
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee proposes to cure the defect in the judgment in this case by remitting all of the amount given to him for' damages to the land outside the reservoir tract in the sum of $17,837.18 and the interest accrued on that sum. Such a remittitur fully cures the vice in the judgment with reference to that portion of the case.
[10] We adhere to our opinion that the court erred in refusing appellant’s special charge as set out in its twenty-eighth assignment of error. But the portion of the map objected to was only in the nature of cumulative evidence, and the error is not of such a nature as to justify the reversal of the cause under Courts of Civil Appeals Rule 62a (149 S. W. x). Under the former aspect of the case it was material to point out this error to guide the court in another trial; but as the ease, as now presented, will be affirmed, that becomes unnecessary.
Motion for rehearing is granted, and, the remittitur having been entered,- the judgment of the lower court is reformed and affirmed for the sum of $121,628.20, the value of the land included in the reservoir tract with interest according to the court’s decree. Ap-pellee will pay costs of this appeal.