Court Opinion

ID: 9828798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:44:34.832323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:53.199777
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellant insists that this court is without authority to reverse and render judgment which would conform to the verdict returned, but must necessarily remand the case for retrial. Under article 1626, R. S., and the decisions, we think it very clear that this court may reverse and render judgment in conformity with the verdict, and need not remand for retrial unless there is some other error presented which necessitates such retrial. Arno, etc., v. Pugh (Com. App.) 212 S. W. 470; Railway Co. v. Harrell, 194 S. W. 971; Gose v. Coryell, 59 Tex. Civ. App. 504, 126 S. W. 1164; Delaune v. Irr. Co., 60 Tex. Civ. App. 452, 128 S. W. 174.
[5, 6] Appellant further insists that the appellate court will not reform a judgment in favor of an appellee who has sued out no cross-appeal nor filed cross-assignments of error. As a general proposition the correctness of this rule is not to be questioned. This court did not reverse and render the judgment which should have been rendered upon the verdict for the purpose of affording proper relief to appellee. It was done because appellant assigned error and complained of the failure of the court to render the judgment which properly should have been rendered.
Having assumed such an attitude, the appellant is in no position to question the action of this court in correcting the error of which it complained and which could be here corrected. But manifestly, in urging that assignment, appellant did not intend that it should operate to its prejudice, but proceeded upon the mistaken view that it would require a remand of the case for retrial. And, since the appellee has filed no cross-assignment in respect to the error, we have concluded that it is best to simply apply the well-settled rule that an appellant may not complain of errors in his favor, and that such errors are not reversible. Smith v. Hessey, 134 S. W. 256, is directly in point. In that case it is said:
“However, appellant construes the findings of the jury as fixing the inventory value of Eoans at $5,068.89, and their market value at 25 per cent, above this amount. If this be true, the court has erred in its judgment on said item to the amount of $1,267.17 in favor of appellant. Appellee does not complain of this action of the court. Can appellant be heard to do so? We think not. In order for an appellant in any case to require of this court a reversal of a judgment, he must show that an error has been committed which, at least probably, resulted in his injury. If any error was committed by the court in this matter, it not only did not probably result in an injury to him, but assuredly resulted to his benefit.”
A similar ruling was made in Capps v. City of Longview, 178 S. W. 730. And it has been several times held that an appellant cannot complain that the evidence entitled the adverse party to a greater recovery. Smith v. Development Co., 195 S. W. 220; Railway Co. v. State, 194 S. W. 462; Lumber Co. v. Stewart, 148 S. W. 1193.
Motion for rehearing is granted in part, and judgment now rendered in appellee’s favor for $153.33, with interest thereon from February 28, 1919, at rate of 6 per cent, per annum. All costs taxed against appellant.