Court Opinion

ID: 9645381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:23:10.122683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:26.931434
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We were in error in saying, in the original opinion, that appellee did not file any *258cross-points. Appellee did in fact file the following two cross-points:
Cross-Point Number One
The findings of the jury to Special Issues Nos. 5 and 6 have insufficient support in the evidence.
Cross-Point Number Two
The findings of the jury to Special Issues Nos. S and 6 are against the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence.
Under these cross-points appellee makes the following statement and argument:
“The foregoing Cross-points are made out of precaution in accordance with the provisions of Rule 324, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
“Without in any manner waiving our contentions with regard to the points raised by Appellants on appeal, we urge that the jury’s findings to Special Issues Nos. 5 and 6 have insufficient support, in the evidence and/or are against the overwhelming preponderance and weight of the evidence. Since this becomes a question for this Court to decide after reading all of the facts in this case, and since the Court will read all of the facts, there is no occasion for our laboring our Cross-points.”
These cross-points, when construed in connection with the statement and argument, present nothing for this Court to pass upon. This Court does not have jurisdiction to pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence other than to determine whether there is “some evidence.” In a jury trial, the weight and preponderance of the evidence is a question of fact to be decided by the jury. It is only where the finding of the jury is so against the great weight and overwhelming preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong, manifestly unjust, or shocking to the conscience, that this Court has jurisdiction to set aside the verdict of the jury and grant a new trial. Bardwell v. Anderson, Tex.Civ.App., 325 S.W.2d 929.
 While we are of the opinion that the cross-points, together with appellee’s statement and argument, are insufficient to raise the fact question that the jury’s answers to Special Issues Nos. 5 and 6, were so against the great weight and overwhelming preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust, or to shock the conscience, nevertheless, we have read the entire statement of facts and conclude that such findings are not so against the great weight and overwhelming preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong, manifestly unjust or shocking to the conscience. The cross-points are overruled. Watson v. Prewitt, Tex., 320 S.W.2d 815; In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660; Fisher Const. Co. v. Riggs, Tex.Civ.App., 320 S.W.2d 200. See, 30 Tex.Law Rev. 803.
We have considered appellee’s motion for rehearing and the same is overruled.