Court Opinion

ID: 9833138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:29:13.173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:00.059857
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The appellee wholly misconceives the application of the- case of Hovey v. Sanders, 174 S. W. page 1026, to the bill of exceptions discussed by us as presenting the error of the court in failing to give special charge No. 8, mentioned in the main opinion. In that case the special issues requested were presented as a whole, and the action of the court in refusing all, not any particular one, was excepted to as an entirety. Here the record shows the special charges were presented and refused singly as shown by the indorsement of the trial judge upon the charges, and the bill states in effect that, when he refused to “give any of such special charges,” the plaintiff excepted to the action of the court. It would be arbitrarily technical to condemn such a bill — a procedure to be commended instead of reprehended.
[7] The objection now urged for the first timé that there was no pleading to support the issue embodied in special charge No. 8, discussed in the main opinion, which has halted our ruling upon this motion, we think is equally untenable. We think it would be better to plead it, but conclude that it is not the character of mistake vel non required to be pleaded. The issue was registration or nonregistration. The appellees present the issue of nonregistration on account of the descriptive “star” in the certificate. The appellees s'ay that the horse was registered on a proper description in the application for registration, and the remaining description in the certificate, which can be regarded as a showing that the certificate did not prove What the defendant claimed it proved.
•Motion overruled.