Court Opinion

ID: 9827544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:39:01.10597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:19:33.003023
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In the motion for rehearing in this case, counsel for the appellee earnestly and vigorously insist that we committed error in reversing the judgment of the lower court on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict upon which the judgment is based. They contend that the burden rested upon the appellants, McKeever and wife, to prove that Mrs. McKeever was the owner of the property covered by the mortgage executed by Penn, and also to prove that she did not authorize Penn to execute the mortgage. '
It is our opinion that such burden did not rest upon appellants, but if so, it was fully and completely met, both as to Mrs. McKeever’s ownership and want of authority in Penn to mortgage her property, with the exception of the mules. We have carefully reconsidered the evidence relating to this contention, and still conclude that our original opinion was correct.
It is true, as argued by counsel in the motion, that McKeever and wife were interested witnesses, being parties to the suit, but their testimony was positive and unequivocal to the effect that they did not authorize Penn to mortgage Mrs. MeKeever’s property, other than the mules, and there was no evidence of any character tending to impeach or discredit such testimony. Such being the state of the evidence, it was not the province of the jury to say that Penn had authority to mortgage Mrs. McKeever’s property. Whatever may have been the rule heretofore, it now seems to be settled in this state that neither a jury nor a trial judge may disregard and decline to give effect to the uncontradicted testimony of a party to a suit, when that testimony is positive and unequivocal, and there is nothing done to impeach or discredit it. Thomas & Co. v. Hawthorne (Tex. Civ. App.) 245 S. W. 966; Joffre v. Mynatt (Tex. Civ. App.) 206 S. W. 951; Hill v. Staats (Tex. Civ. App.) 187 S. W. 1039.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.