Court Opinion

ID: 9829664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:30:52.346501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:03.961017
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
Both parties have filed lengthy and somewhat persuasive motions for rehearing in this case. The plaintiff, Pryor, based upon the next to the last paragraph of our original opinion, insists that ‘the cause should not be remanded for another trial, but sincé defendant, LeSage, had not filed cross assignments of error complaining of the rulings of the court which resulted in a favorable jury finding for plaintiff, they had been waived. There are good authorities for the contention. But the language used by us was occasioned by an oversight on our part, and was improvidently done.
The language used, to which we have referred, is as follows:
“Although the verdict of the jury, as’ide from Special Issue 19, is for plaintiff, we are not rendering this cause, for the reason that upon the trial below defendant objected to every issue submitted, for various and sundry reasons; but having received a favorable judgment, he has had no opportunity upon this appeal to present his contentions there expressed. To here render a judgment would do violence to his complaints which would form the basis for assignments of error had he been cast in the action.”
As stated, we were in error in the quoted paragraph, and we now withdraw the same from the opinion. As a matter of fact, defendant did present in his brief seven cross-assignments of error, saving the points raised, perhaps to meet the very condition that has arisen. It would be more accurate to here say that because of defendant’s objections and exceptions to the charge and other rulings of the court presented by the cross-assignments, we feel impelled to reverse and remand the cause, rather than render judgment for plaintiff. The following authorities support our acts in so doing: Williams v. Safety Casualty Co., 129 Tex. 184, 102 S.W.2d 178; Colbert v. Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank of Dallas, 129 Tex. 235, 102 S.W.2d 1031; Sun Oil Co. v. Gunter et al., Tex.Civ.App., 125 S.W.2d 338-340.
Defendant insists that we were wrong in holding that there was no substantial evidence adduced to support the jury verdict in answer to Special Issue 19. He offers many authorities which discuss as many *313different phases and conditions involved in the doctrine of joint enterprises. We have indicated in the original opinion that - the trial court applied the test of the elements entering into that relationship that was approved in El Paso Electric Co. v. Leeper, Tex.Com.App., 60 S.W.2d 187. The facts in the Leeper case were similar in many respects to those under consideration by us. We feel that we have correctly disposed of this case. There are many expressions found in defendant’s motion, in which it is contended that we have held contrary to the undisputed facts developed upon the trial. We do not feel that any worthwhile purpose could be served by further writing at length in an effort to refute such statements. We are sure that none of them were made with any other purpose in view than to express the party’s conception of what is contained in the record. We believe that the ends of justice, as applicable to all parties, will be best subserved by the disposition made by us of this appeal. Both motions are therefore overruled.