Court Opinion

ID: 9834024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:14:20.085962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:10.993088
License: Public Domain

On Motions for Rehearing.
•Appellant, defendant below, brought this ca'se up on two assignments of error: (1) That the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict in its favor.; (2) that the trial court erred in refusing to render judgment in its favor non obstante veredicto. These assignments "are necessarily based on the idea that the evidence failed to disclose any theory on which plaintiff could ' have recovered. We overruled this contention for the reason that the evidence on the material issues, being conflicting, justified the submission of the ease to the jury and warranted the judgment. '■
*364Plaintiff sued for $2271.70, less an admitted credit of $748.85, based on the contention that defendant agreed to pay him a flat commission ojj $7 for each sewing machine sold at its substations in Fort Worth and San Antonio, whether the sale was made by him or by salesmen under him. Defendant denied plaintiff’s contention and pleaded as an offset charges for certain machines that had to be taken back on sales made by both plaintiff and his salesmen. The court submitted the issue in regard to this matter as to salesmen’s sales, and the jury haying found in favor of plaintiff, all offsets claimed by defendant in regard to such sales were eliminated. The court, however, declined to submit the issue in regard to plaintiff’s personal sales, and on this phase of the case Mr. Cor-win, defendant’s Southern supervisor, testified in effect that defendant was entitled to credits for machines returned on plaintiff’s personal sales at Fort Worth $242 and at San Antonio $328.25, which, together with the admitted credit of $748.85, made a. total offset (under the trial court’s theory of the case) of $1319.25, thus showing a balance of $952.60 in plaintiff’s favor, for which amount judgment could have been rendered, although the evidence was conflicting, but instead the court gave judgment for only $535.75.
We adopt as our conclusions the findings of the jury to the effect that defendant agreed to pay plaintiff a flat fee of $7 for each machine sold by his salesmen, and, in harmony with the evident findings of the trial court, conclude that the evidence showed defendant to be indebted to plaintiff in the sum of at least $535.75, the amount for which judgment was rendered. These findings are the ultimate facts upon which the judgment is based, therefore defendant’s request for other findings is refused, and its motion for rehearing, after due consideration, is overruled.
Plaintiff, appellee here, also asks for rehearing. AVe reversed and remanded the cause on cross-assignments urged, by plaintiff, based on the refusal of the trial court to have the jury answer whether or not defendant agreed to pay plaintiff a flat commission of $7 on his personal sales, as well as those madel by salesmen. This issue was pleaded, was supported by evidence, and, in our opinion, should have been submitted. Plaintiff comes now, and in his motion for rehearing withdraws or waives the cross-assignments,' prays the court to set aside the judgment remanding the case, and affirm the judgment. No reason occurs to us why this cannot and should not be done. Therefore appellee’s motion for rehearing is granted, the judgment heretofore rendered is set aside, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.