Court Opinion

ID: 9832252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:45:40.571751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:44.825944
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In what is said in the original opinion we do not wish to be understood that a motion for a new trial is always necessary where the case is tried before the court To raise points involving misconduct of the jury, newly discovered evidence, and the like, ■ it may be necessary to call same to the attention of the trial court. See Phillips Pet. Co. v. Booles (Tex. Com. App.) 276 S. W. 667; 3 Tex. Jur. p. 246, § 163 et seq.
In reaching our conclusions in the original-opinion at least two facts were deemed certain and controlling, in connection with the undisputed facts that the employment began December 12, 1930, and terminated April 26, 1932. The first fact is that the employment originally was for $100 per month, and the second that the compensation was changed from $100 per month to $50 per month on July 12, 1931. With these undisputed facts, nothing remained to be done but to correctly calculate the amount of the judgment in keeping with the definite finding by the court that the plaintiff was entitled to such. The assignment presented by the appellant challenged the correctness of such calculations, and this court considered and dealt with the point as merely suggesting a clerical error or mistake, which was capable of correction either in this or the trial court. An appeal to obtain such a correction was wholly unnecessary. If we correctly interpret the trial court’s findings and conclusions, it follows that that is certain which can be made certain; that is, the facts being established, nothing remained to be done but to correctly calculate the amount. of the judgment. The appellant’s contention sent us in to the record, and after a due consideration thereof we found that the same would not fully bear out the contention, but, the error or mistake in calculation being fully revealed, we deemed it our duty to enter a judgment based upon a correct calculation. Further, there is nothing in the record to indicate that any specific aid or information was given to the trial judge calling his attention to such clerical error. Under these circumstances, and being of the opinion that, had such aid been rendered, the court would readily have entered a correct judgment and thereby eliminated the necessity of an appeal, it is believed in accordance with the authorities cited the costs should be adjudged as in the original opinion. In this connection, special attention is called to the case of Grier v. Powell, by our Supreme Court, in 14 Tex. 321.
For the reason assigned, the motion for rehearing is overruled.