Court Opinion

ID: 9832973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:20:43.487459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:56.794439
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We overrule appellant’s motion for a cer-tiorari, requiring the clerk to send up the original stenographer’s notes in order to show that an agreement as to title was introduced in evidence, and also his request to dismiss this appeal for want of a statement of facts. The trial judge filed a statement of facts, and the same is conclusive on this court.
[3] We also overrule appellant’s request to dismiss this appeal for want of final judgment. The ground of said contention is that the judgment does not dispose of the defendant Rogers’ cross-action against his code-fendant Kuykendall, to recover the amount alleged to be owing him for the land in controversy. Defendant Rogers did not introduce any evidence, so far as the record shows, in support of his said cross-action. The same was not submitted to the jury. I-Ie did not ask to have it submitted. He made no motion for a new trial, did not appeal, and is not complaining of the judgment rendered. Under such circumstances, he must be deemed to have abandoned his cross-action, and the judgment must be held to have disposed of all of the issues before the court. Schulz v. Tessman, 92 Tex. 490, 49 S. W. 1032; Railway Co. v. Perkins, 44 S. W. 548; Railway Co. v. Hooks, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 325, 70 S. W. 233; Bledsoe v. Railway Co., 6 Tex. Civ. App. 280, 25 S. W. 314; Railway Co. v. Schlather, 78 S. W. 953; Sorrell v. Stone, 127 S. W. 301.
Motion overruled.