Court Opinion

ID: 9830726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:25:04.110837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:26.026339
License: Public Domain

*116On Rehearing.
On motion for rehearing, appellants contend that we erred in holding their pleading insufficient' as against the special exception raising limitation, (a) because appellees did not cross-assign error to the action of the court overruling the special exception; and (b) because the action of the trial court overruling the special exception deprived them of their right to amend, which they would have done had the court sustained the special exception. It is not clear from the record whether the court intended, by granting ap-pellees’ motion for an instructed verdict, to reverse its former order overruling the special exception and to then sustain same, and to hold the pleadings insufficient as against the special exception, or merely to hold that the appellants failed to prove any fact or facts which would suspend the running of the statute as a matter of law.
If the former was the intention of. the trial court, then of course appellants had an opportunity to file a trial amendment at that time. But, if the latter was intended, then the question does not appear to be material, because the trial court clearly held that, if all the facts testified to had been alleged, still they were insufficient to suspend the running of the statute, and we sustained in our original opinion and here sustain this holding of the trial court.
The motion will be overruled.
Overruled.