Court Opinion

ID: 9827620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:42:22.329559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:33.836468
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It is insisted by appellant that the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded because the testimony of appellee, Burgin, is insufficient to establish the mar-*247Ret values of his car just before and just after the injuries to it, because he failed to state that such was its value at any definite place. Appellant insists that the case of Ara v. Rutland (Tex. Com. App.) 215 S. W. 445, is an authority, directly in point upon this question. That case does hold that the evidence fixing the market value in cases of this character should show what the “market value is at the place designated by the law as furnishing the proper locus of the market from which the value is to be determined.” It appears that in the Ara Case the objection was that the testimony was objected to because it did not prove, nor tend to prove( the true measure of plaintiff’s damages, and it further appears from the report of the case that in the motion for new trial the defendant specially pointed out to the court wherein the testimony failed to meet the legal requirement necessary to establish the true measure of damage, by charging that the witnesses did not testify as to the market value “at Victoria.” The record in the instant case does not bring it within the rule announced in the Ara Case. Appellant’s bill of exceptions in this ease shows that the only objection urged in the court below is:
“Because the witness failed to show any qualification as an expert as to the market value of the car at the time of the injury, nor as to the value of the car after the injury, which would constitute the true measure of damages.”
This objection certainly does not raise the one now here urged that Burgin did not state the market value at Groom or at any place where the law required such value to be shown.
The second, eighteenth, and nineteenth paragraphs of the motion for new trial, based upon the admission of Burgin’s testimony, also failed to present the question of the insufficiency of the evidence to prove the market value at the proper place.
In reviewing the rulings of the trial court upon evidence admitted or excluded, this court is confined to a consideration of the specific objections made in the court below. See numerous decisions, 7 Michie, Enc. Digest, pp. 33-35. The appellant did not request the court to direct a verdict, and therefore the error as presented here is not fundamental, and cannot be considered in the absence of an effort to have the ruling reviewed by the trial judge. The want or insufficiency of evidence to support the verdict and judgment is not such fundamental error as can be considered by this court in the absence of a proper assignment based upon the bill of exceptions or a motion, for new trial raising the question in a lower court. Campbell v. Kone (Tex. Civ. App.) 26 S. W. 231; Supreme Council v. Storey (Tex. Civ. App.) 75 S. W. 901; Galveston, etc., Railway Co. v. Clark, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 167, 51 S. W. 276; writ of error refused, 93 Tex. 706.
After a careful review of the motion for rehearing, we think the case has been properly disposed of in the original opinion, and the motion is overruled.