Court Opinion

ID: 9833346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:38:14.005743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:01.724609
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[2] In the motion of appellants for rehearing our attention is directed to the fact that, while formerly holding the trial court to have been without error in withdrawing from the jury’s consideration the two items of damage complained of in the appellee’s cross-assignment, that is, $105 as the value of 3 cows left in the pens at Rosenberg, and $280 as the value of 8 cows alleged to have died after delivery to appellee at that point, we yet reversed the judgment appealed from in its entirety. This should not have been done. The cause of action touching these two items was separate and distinct from that claiming a shortage of 31 head of cattle, and since it was held that no evidence was cited as a basis for any recovery thereon, the trial court’s judgment eliminating them should have been affirmed. Our original judgment will now be so reformed as to direct that to be done.
In other respects, being unconvinced of error, the motion is overruled.
Appellants’ motion for rehearing granted in part; refused in part.