Court Opinion

ID: 9828220
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:13:12.704773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:46.049542
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Among other grounds set up by the defendant in error in its motion for rehearing is that plaintiff in error was accorded the privilege of opening and concluding, in the introduction of evidence and in the argument, under rule 31 for district and county courts, and that at the conclusion of his evidence the court gave a peremptory instruction in favor of defendant in error, thus depriving it of an opportunity to offer evidence in rebuttal, the insistence being that for this reason the case should be remanded that it may he afforded an opportunity to introduce evidence traversing the case made by plaintiff in error.
We do not challenge the correctness of the statement contained in the brief and argument for defendant in error to the effect that in the trial court Howth was accorded the privilege of opening and concluding in the introduction of evidence, and in the argument under rule 31 for district and county courts, but the record before us is silent on that subject. The rule in question requires that the admission under rule 31 shall be entered of record. For this reason we are not at liberty to consider the contention of defendant in so far as it is based on this proceeding. However, we are of the opinion that defendant in error is in no position to insist that the case be remanded in order that it may be afforded an opportunity to offer evidence in rebuttal, for the reason that the peremptory instruction in its favor was given by the court at its request. It cannot, therefore, be said that it has been deprived of an opportunity to offer evidence in rebuttal, because at its own instance the evidence was closed and the peremptory -instruction given.
In determining whether the case should have been rendered or. remanded, -we were guided by the provisions of article 1856 (1626) (1027) Rev. Civ. St. 1925, to the effect that when the judgment of the trial court is reversed the Court of Civil Appeals shall proceed to render such judgment or decree as the trial court should have rendered, except where it is necessary to ascertain some matter of fact, or when the matter to be decreed *243is uncertain. In either of these events the cause shall be remanded.
There is no suggestion from either pleading or evidence adduced that the facts on another trial will probably differ in any material respect from the facts before us.
Having determined that the ease should be reversed, and as we find no reason to remand the case in order to ascertain any matter of fact, the matter to be decreed being certain, it is our plain duty, under the statute, to render judgment in favor of plaintiff in error, as should have been done by the trial court.
Motion for rehearing is accordingly overruled.