Court Opinion

ID: 9833066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:25:29.782972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:59.267800
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The main ground for this motion is that we erred in rendering the judgment in this cause instead of remanding it, because appellee will be able on another trial to make out his case independent of the objectionable letter, and for that reason the cause should be remanded for another trial, as the cause was not fully developed. Leal v. Moglia (Tex. Civ. App.) 192 S. W. 1121; Fort Worth & R. G. Ry. Co. v. Fleming (Tex. Civ. App.) 212 S. W. 233.
The judgment of this court in rendering the judgment instead of remanding it was based upon the supposition that the case had been fully developed. The ruling of the court, it is claimed, in admitting the letter, caused him not to make other proof, and that may be true. He might have called appellant to the witness stand to testify, thereby waiving the provisions of article 3690, R. S.
We thought of that, but appellant was present at the time, and was offered as a witness to testify by appellant, but the court sustained the objection of appellee himself to his testifying. It may be, had the court not permitted the introduction of the letter, the appellee would have used the appellant as a witness, who can say? _
For the reasons given, we grant the motion of appellee for a rehearing, set aside our judgment rendering the case, and remand the cause for another trial.