Court Opinion

ID: 9446614
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:59:39.406139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:43.169889
License: Public Domain

HUTCHESON, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
If I could agree that the answer of the jury to Special Issue No. 4 was authorized by the unconditional submission of that issue to it and was supported by evidence, I would certainly agree that, in setting the pattern for, and thereby strictly limiting, defendant’s recovery by way of offset or counter claim, the majority has made a wise and just disposition of the cause and has given good and satisfactory reasons therefor.
Because, however, I am of the clear opinion that the district judge was right in entering judgment for plaintiff and against defendant, I respectfully dissent from the reversal of his judgment.
I base this opinion primarily on the jury’s answer to Special Issue No. 1 and the undisputed evidence as a whole set out in part in the opinion of the majority which irrefutability establishes that defendant was not entitled to recover of plaintiff in offset or otherwise.
I base it, too, on the ground that in fact and in law the answers of the jury to Special Issues Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, on which the majority bases its opinion, were not responsive to, but were made in violation of, the court’s instructions in this, that, in the submission of the case to the jury, Issues Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were unconditionally submitted for answer, while the remaining issues were submitted only upon this condition: “If you have answered the above special issues Nos. 1, 2, and 3, ‘No’, but not otherwise, then answer the next question”, and the condition was not fulfilled because the answer to Special Issue No. 1 was “Yes”.