Court Opinion

ID: 9832818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:13:27.3606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:53.275960
License: Public Domain

On Defendant in Error’s Motion for Rehearing.
Defendant in Error earnestly insists, among other things, that filing of motions by each party, at the close of the evidence, for an instructed verdict in its behalf was tantamount to a demurrer to the evidence, amounted to a waiver óf a jury trial, and that under such circumstances, if there be competent evidence to support the trial court’s judgment, it is our duty to sustain it. This contention was fully discussed and effectively and specifically disposed of by this court in Citizens’ National Bank v. Texas Compress Co., 294 S.W. 331, writ refused. Nor does the case of Senter v. Dixie Motor Coach Corporation, 128 Tex. 389, 97 S.W.2d 945, in any manner change the rule announced . in the Texas Compress Company Case. In the Senter Case, wherein each party asked for an instructed verdict, the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals, 67 S.W.2d 345, was sustained by the Supreme Court, not on the grounds contended for by the Defendant in Error herein, but on the grounds that under the written contract there involved, the appellee corporation was, as a matter of law, under the undisputed facts, entitled to an instructed verdict in its behalf. Manifestly the Senter Case has no application where fact issues are presented wherein the evidence is sharply conflicting; in which instance the rule laid down in the Texas Compress Company Case controls.
Defendant in Error’s motion is overruled.
Overruled.