Court Opinion

ID: 9827046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:05:34.200483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:21.763661
License: Public Domain

On Motion, for Rehearing.
On rehearing, appellant contends that thé evidence reveals a substantial difference as to the extent of the damage and the repairs necessary to be made to the lease premises, and that such difference raises issues of fact for a determination of the jury; thus, that the trial court was without authority, as a matter of law, to sustain appellee’s motion for an instructed verdict, and that this court erred in holding that the undisputed facts leave no room for a question of fact to be submitted to the jury.
It is evident that this case was tried in the court below and reaches this court on the basic contention that either appellant or ap-pellee should have received an instructed verdict. On the trial of the case, after the conclusion of the testimony, both sides moved the court for an instructed verdict. The court peremptorily instructed a verdict for appel-lee and submitted to the jury a written charge, to which appellant presented no ex ception and offered no special issues, embodying the idea of differences in the extent of damages and the necessary repairs, ¿s contended here. Thus the conclusion is reached that appellant did not consider the extent of such damages and repairs as becoming controverted issues, or that the record reveals other than a question of law. .
Under the practice statutes involved (article 2184), it is made the mandatory duty of a trial judge, “unless expressly waived by the parties,” to deliver a written charge to the jury (article 2189); the charge may be general or on special issues at the discretion of the court, in the absence of request by either party for special issues; and (article 2185) the court’s charge must be prepared, submitted to counsel, and reasonable time given them to examine and make objections before it is read to the jury, and “all objections not so made and presented shall be con-' sidered as waived.”
Thus it is the settled law in this state that a party may waive an issue, upon .which he relies for recovery or defense, by not requiring its submission and declining to object to the charge of the court before it is read to the jury; in such cases the issues are abandoned and the vice in the charge is expressly waived. We are of the opinion that, if the evidence raises controverted issues of fact, as here contended by appellant, the record discloses an abandonment of such issues, and the case rests on a question of law. Interpreting the contest in the light of the evi-dentiary disclosures as to the extent of the damages, which, in the absence of objection to the instruction of the court, or request for special issues, the issues are “deemed as found by the court in such manner as to support the judgment .if there is evidence to sustain such finding.” Article 2190 as amended by Acts 1931, c. 78, § 1 (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 2190). Under the decisions, it must be presumed that the trial court found all disputed fact issues in favor of appellee to support the judgment rendered. Such findings are necessarily conclusive, unless there is no evidence to support such findings. Mueller v. Bobbitt (Tex. Civ. App.) 41 S.W.(2d) 466; Miller Mfg. Co. v. Rogers (Tex. Civ. App.) 281 S. W. 596; Pope v. Beauchamp, 110 Tex. 271, 219 S. W. 447; Wingart v. Baxter (Tex. Civ, App.) 30 S.W.(2d) 522. Appellant’s brief does not disclose an assignment predicated on the failure of the trial court to submit special issues; thus the appellate court may not consider such failure when not brought to its attention in the manner provided by law. The failure is not a fundamental error, such as would authorize this court to reverse the judgment of the lower court. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.