Court Opinion

ID: 9829564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:26:16.758942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:03.033845
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Complaint is made in the motion for rehearing that we merely overruled the eleventh assignment of error, with the statement that said assignment raised questions disposed of and discussed under other assignments of error. It is said in addition to the questions raised by preceding assignments that the eleventh assignment raises the question of a release clause in the shipping contract pleaded by the appellant Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company of all claims for damages occurring prior to the loading of the cattle.
The particular question we did not discuss, because it was 'not raised by the assignment. The third proposition under this assignment does assert that all damages arising prior to the signing of the written contract were released, for a consideration, in a particular provision of that contract. The assignment, however, is a complaint of the refusal of the trial court of a peremptory instruction requested by the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company. It is to be noted that the special charge had appended to it, as suggestions, and as advisory instructions to the trial judge, five distinct grounds why a peremptory verdict *148should be returned by the jury, and not one of them raises the question that the shipper, by a special contract, released all damages accruing prior to the time the written contract was signed and the cattle were loaded at Marfa. The peremptory instruction, with the fire grounds asserted therein for the peremptory verdict, with a motion in hsec verba for new trial based thereupon, and the assignment necessarily predicated literally upon the same, and not including the particular proposition, excludes the point.
The trial court in his general charge submitted only the liability of the defendants based upon their duty as a common carrier. Appellant’s brief in this court does not complain, one way or the other, as to any omission in not submitting a written contract to the jury. Plaintiffs pleaded an antecedent oral contract to the written contract with the usual allegations that the latter was signed after the cattle were loaded, and the court did not submit, so far as we are advised, the written contract. Whether the trial court regarded the oral contract as proven neither are we informed by the briefs, and there is no complaint in that respect of the general charge of the court.
In this condition for appellant to submit specific grounds embodied in a peremptory charge why the same should he submitted to the jury, and in this court to then assert a proposition to sustain the charge upon another and different ground never presented to the trial court, will not be considered, especially in view of the record.