Court Opinion

ID: 9828041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:02:23.829812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:42.134404
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[3] Appellant urges that we should reverse and render the judgment instead of reversing and remanding, that, judgment should be rendered for plaintiffs for such sum of rents, not to exceed $450, tendered in court by defendant’s pleadings, and a further judgment holding that the original contract of lease was canceled by consent of all parties, and an oral agreement made for a month to month rental. We cannot do this under the facts, as the proof that the original contract was canceled and another and oral rental contract was made depends almost entirely on the testimony of defendant himself. With the testimony coming from an interested source, the jury had the right to disregard it. West Lumber Co. v. Goodrich et al. (Tex. Com. App.) 223 S. W. 183, 192, by Commission of Appeals, approved by the Supreme Court; Mitchum v. C. R. & G. Ry. Co., 107 Tex. 34, 173 S. W. 878; Ry. Co. v. Runnels, 92 Tex. 307, 47 S. W. 971. Nor do we think that the statement in defendant’s bill of exception duly approved by the trial ■court, that “because it is based upon the assumption that -there was no intention on the part of plaintiffs and defendant to make a new contract prior to the death of Jack Wafford, which should have been submitted as a special issue to the jury had not the court found that there was no evidence to the contrary,” should be taken as a statement by the court that he had found from the facts that the plaintiffs and defendant had agreed to cancel the written contract and had substituted therefor the oral contract.
We conclude that the original opinion correctly disposes of the issues presented, and appellant’s motion for rehearing and also appellees’ motion for rehearing are accordingly overruled.