Court Opinion

ID: 9829807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:38:39.920942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:06.737325
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[3] Appellant in his motion for a rehearing insists that the admission of the immaterial evidence of the plaintiff concerning the value of his services rendered on appellee’s farm was manifestly harmful and that we committed error in holding otherwise. We have carefully considered counsel’s insistent argument, but are still unable to conclude that the error complained of was, under all the circumstances, harmful. The mere admission of wholly immaterial evidence does not require or authorize a reversal of the judgment, as stated in our opinion which the motion attacks. The rule that the admission of immaterial evidence requires a reversal unless it appears that no injury could have resulted from the admission of such evidence does not obtain in Texas. On the contrary, the rule is that—
“No judgment shall be reversed on appeal and a new trial ordered in any case on the ground that the trial court has committed an error of law in the course of the trial, unless the appellate court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of amounted to such a denial of the rights of the appellant as toas reasonably calculated to cause and probably did ea/ase the rendition of an improper judgment in the case. * * * ” (Italics ours.) 62a, Rules Texas Court of Civil Appeals (149 S. W. x).
We are not able to say that the admission of the immaterial testimony, under the circumstances recited, probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment, and therefore we would not be justified to reverse the case. Railroad Co. v. Blackburn, 155 S. W. 627; Chamberlayne’s Modern Law of Evidence, vol. 3, § 1749.
Appellant again presents his original objection to the charge of the court. We think the charge fairly conforms to the issue made by the pleadings and the evidence. The effect of the charge was to apply the law correctly to the controversy, and we cannot reverse the judgment merely because the charge may not in all respects comport with our idea of approved form. Rule 62a, supra.
It supplied the right basis for determining the contention between the parties, and there appears no reason for us to declare that it confused or misled the jury, except that their verdict was against appellant, and this is no reason at all, because there is clear and positive testimony to support the verdict, notwithstanding any opinion we might have as to the weight and preponderance of the evidence.
The motion' for rehearing is overruled.