Court Opinion

ID: 9834302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:28:12.630589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:13.646652
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[6] In his motion appellant insists that he did in his assignments question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment, and that the statement to the contrary in the opinion of this court is erroneous. Carefully re-reading his brief, we find that appellant complains in one of the assignments of the action of the court in refusing to give to the jury a special charge he says he requested instructing them to find in his favor. It does not appear from the record that he prepared and presented such a charge to the trial court with a request that he give it, but it does appear that he filed a motion in which he prayed the court to direct the jury to return a verdict in his favor. If this motion should he treated as a requested special charge, appellant is not in a position to complain here of the action of the court in refusing it, because it does not appear from the record that he excepted to such action of the court. Article 2061, Vernon’s Statutes.
Appellant further insists that he offered the abstract of the deed from Ball and Estes to Mason in evidence to prove common source only, and that this court therefore erred in holding that he could not be heard to complain because the trial court over his objection permitted appellees to introduce said abstract as evidence on their behalf, whether, if appellant had offered the abstract as evidence of common source only, the court should have sustained his objection to it when appellees offered it as evidence, need not be determined; for it does not appear from the record sent to this court that he offered the abstract for the purpose of proving common source only.
The motion is overruled.