Court Opinion

ID: 9832827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:13:56.53748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:53.509370
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In view of another trial, we are requested to pass upon appellants’ seventh and tenth assignments of error. These involve the question whether the term “possession” should be defined in connection with special issue No. 2. This issue as given reads: “Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that after such gift, if any, by Lizzie Bruce to O. A. .Rogers that the said O. A. Rogers was placed in possession of the said property, by and with consent of the said Lizzie Bruce?”
Under the particular facts of this case as detailed in our original opinion, if the term “possession” is used in a special issue, that term should be defined, for the jury is left without a guide or instruction to determine what is meant by this term as applied to a parol gift of land. The term “possession” would have different meanings under different situations where possession is an element. Texas & P. Coal & Oil Co. v. Stuard (Tex.Civ.App.) 7 S.W. (2d) 878; Northern Texas Traction Co. v. Jenkins (Tex.Civ.App.) 266 S.W. 175:
The constituent elements of “possession” under the particular circumstances of this case, and the necessity that possession be established, are fully discussed in our original opinion. In this connection, see Davis v. Douglas (Tex.Com.App.) 15 S.W. (2d) 232, and authorities there cited.
' The court’s special issue No. 2 as submitted is substantially the same as appellants’ special requested issue No. 2. This cause was reversed and remanded upon assignments of error 2 and 12, and we see no reason to disturb the former judgment of this court.