Court Opinion

ID: 9776667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:41:53.906796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:41.253773
License: Public Domain

BARROW, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent in part. I would remand this cause to the court of appeals for consideration of the bank’s factual insufficiency point. By that point, the bank complains of the finding that it had actual knowledge of the unauthorized change in the signature card.
This court does not have jurisdiction of points that attack the factual sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a jury finding. Hurst v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 647 S.W.2d 249, 253 (Tex.1983); Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. arts. 1728, 1821. As the majority points out, the bank urged under one point that there was no evidence to support the jury finding, or in the alternative the evidence was factually insufficient to support that finding. This manner of presentation is expressly authorized by Rule 418(d), Tex.R. Civ.P., as amended January 1, 1981. Furthermore, the bank’s argument was fully presented under this point because the same record references and legal arguments support both the no evidence and the factual insufficiency contentions.
I agree that there is “some evidence” to support the jury finding, but we do not have jurisdiction to consider the factual insufficiency contention.