Court Opinion

ID: 9833722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:58:01.630877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:05.789727
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellants insist on motion for rehearing that our holding that appellee did not, by failure to request the submission of the issues to the jury, waive its right to judgment on the paving certificate and for foreclosure of the statutory lien securing same, is in conflict with the holdings in the cases of Ormsby v. Ratcliffe, 117 Tex. 242, 1 S.W. (2d) 1084; and Bulin v. Smith (Tex. Com. App.) 1 S.W.(2d) 591. We find no such conflict. The cases cited merely hold that where the party at interest fails to request the submission of a disputed “ground of recovery or defense,” same will be regarded as waived. No such question is presented here. The ground of recovery pleaded by appellee was undisputed and uncontroverted, and the trial court instructed the jury that judgment would be rendered for appellee on such undisputed or uncontroverted ground of recovery, submitting to the jury in that connection the only disputed ground of recovery asserted by appellee.
Motion overruled.
Overruled.