Court Opinion

ID: 9668535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:17:30.879448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:45.991761
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellee presents three points of error in its Motion for Rehearing. The first point was not addressed in our original opinion although the argument was presented in the Appellee’s brief. The point asserts any error in the instructions in the Court’s charge was waived because the Appellant did not submit a substantially correct instruction. Rule 274, Tex.R.Civ.P., only requires an objection in order to assert *711error as to an instruction actually given by the court. Only if no instruction is given is a party required to tender a substantially correct instruction in order to complain on appeal. Rule 279, Tex.R.Civ.P. See: Texas Employers’ Insurance Association v. Mallard, 143 Tex. 77, 182 S.W.2d 1000 (1944); W. Masterson, Jr., Preparation and Submission of Special Issues in Texas, 6 Sw.L.J. 163 at 189 (1952).
We have previously considered and written on the other two points raised in the Motion for Rehearing. The motion is overruled.
WARD, J., not sitting.