Court Opinion

ID: 9830783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:28:17.634534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:26.633926
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
HEAD, Associate Justice.
The judgment rendered in the court below was in favor of the minor, without mentioning her next friend, and appellant in its motion for rehearing insists that this was not a final judgment, and asks that the appeal herein be dismissed.
We are of opinion that in this class of cases a judgment in favor of the minor without in express terms disposing of the next friend, is a final' judgment from which an appeal can be taken. In addition to the authorities referred to in the original opinion herein, see Railway v. Hewitt, 67 Texas, 473; Oil Company v. Thompson, 76 Texas, 235; Savings Bank v. Wales, 3 Ct. App. C. C., see. 244.
We are also of opinion that the disposition we have made of the case in holding that the remarks of the 'judge in the presence of the jury, to *649the effect that he entertained doubts as the admissibility of the report made by the physicians appointed to examine appellee, were not such as to call for a reversal of the case. As said by Justice Henry, in the case of Smith v. Traders National Bank, 82 Texas, 368, “It is practically impossible for a court to make its rulings on questions arising during the trial without saying something in explanation.”
Delivered December 22, 1892.
The motion for rehearing will therefore be overruled.

Motion overruled.