Court Opinion

ID: 9831497
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:08:43.827261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:35.365183
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellants assert that this court erred in overruling the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error on the ground that appellants did not make objections or take bills of exception to the charge of the court. This court made no such ruling, but merely stated that no objection was urged to the charge at the time it was given, nor a bill *818of exceptions reserved. This court has not made itself a party to the conflict among several of the Courts of Civil Appeals on the practice that should prevail as to taking bills of exception when a review is sought of the action of the trial court in giving peremptory instructions. What the charge of the court was, however, does not appear in any statement under either of the first three assignments of error, and this court could only ascertain what was in the charge by searching the record. This duty is not imposed on a court. Whatever the charge may have been, no objection was made to it, and no charges were asked by appellants. No objection to the charge was made until an amended motion for new trial was filed two weeks after the charge was given.
The fourth assignment of error complains of recitals in the judgment, but fails in the statement to show what the recitals were in the judgment. However, it may be said that appellee did disclaim any intention of interfering with appellants in the use of such space as is necessary to operate his wells, and there could be no harm in reciting that disclaimer in the judgment and basing a judgment for appellants thereon. If appellee did not make the disclaimer, he, and not appellants, has cause to complain.
The fifth assignment of error complains that the judgment is improper in that it does not adjudicate as to how much was necessary for the proper operation of the wells. It was not alleged in the petition that an acre of land was necessary for the operation of the wells, but merely that appellee had agreed that an acre was necessary. There was no evidence of an agreement, as before stated, that an acre of land should go with the wells. The evidence did not show that an acre was necessary.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.