Court Opinion

ID: 9769705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:59:11.252592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:07.102722
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
The Appellee contends in his motion for rehearing that there was no issue as to the terms of the traveler's checks which were lost and that we erred in sustaining the point of error attacking the legal sufficiency of the evidence on that issue of the case. Having tried the case under Section 3.804, Tex.Bus. & Com.Code, Appellee was required to establish the terms of each instrument claimed to be lost. If there was no dispute, why did the trial court submit that issue? If there was no dispute, why didn’t the Appellee object to the submission of the issue? The Appellant’s Motion for Instructed Verdict stated: “He [Plaintiff] must establish the terms of the instrument * * Counsel in his argument in support of the motion said: “He hasn’t even established the terms of the instruments upon which he is bringing his suit.”
We find no evidence that the sales advices reflect all of the terms of the checks in dispute, particularly with regard to a promise to pay when properly countersigned by the holder. Appellee now urges that we take judicial notice of the terms of the checks which were issued by Thomas C. Cook, Inc. That request comes too late when made after the case has been tried and decided on appeal. Cf., Thomas v. Morrison, 537 S.W.2d 274 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
The motion for rehearing is overruled.