Court Opinion

ID: 9828671
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:36:44.888674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:51.707000
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The writer of the original opinion yielded to the views of his able associates, and, with reluctance, wrote the opinion, on application of appellee, setting aside the former opinion and affirming the judgment of the trial court.
Now, after considering the motion filed by appellants for rehearing, on the 18th day of June, 1924, which, on account of the importance underlying the procedure in such eases, was held up for consideration, as it could not be disposed of prior to the adjournment, we have now reached a final conclusion.
The writer is inclined to the opinion that the alleged errors are fundamental, and are raised practically as they were raised'by one of the attorneys here, Mr. Harbert Davenport, who raised them in the case of Yzaguirre v. Garcia (Tex. Civ. App.) 172 S. W. 139. Against the earnest protest of the appellee, Garcia, who presented similar objections to the consideration thereof as here urged .by appellee, this honorable court considered the assignments, and in its opinion, on page 141 of 172 S. W., said:
“Assignments of error were filed in the trial' court, but no motion for a new trial, other than the motion for judgment for the defendants and a motion to render for the defendants on the verdict of the jury as returned.”
And again, the court said, in the same opinion:
“As to whether the motions filed were sufficient to relieve appellants from the necessity of filing a motion for a new trial need not here be decided, because the matters to which our attention is directed are fundamental.”
However, as the majority of this court insists upon overruling the motion for rehearing, that will be the order of the court, and appellants’ motion for a rehearing is overruled.