Court Opinion

ID: 9833876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:06:48.175248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:08.353550
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
This cause was remanded because of the failure to prove what the expense of making the crops would have been. This went to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment, and was a matter necessary t'o be specified in the motion for new trial.
[8] There was nothing in the motions for new trial assailing the verdict on this ground, unless it was comprehended in the following ground: “Because the verdict of the jury is contrary to the law and the evidence.” That this did not present such question or any question for the action of the trial judge is made clear by rule 68 (67 S. W. xxv) prescribed for the government' of district and county courts, which reads: “Grounds of objections couched in general terms as that * * * the verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence, the verdict of the jury is contrary to the law and the like, shall not be considered by the court.” This rule is in pursuance of article 1371, Rev. St., which requires all grounds to be specified, or not heard or considered.
There was nothing in the motion for new trial specifying and calling the trial court’s attention to this ground of the insufficiency of the evidence. Consequently it was error for this court t'o sustain an assignment based on puch ground.
There was a ground stated in the motions that the verdict was excessive for certain reasons as that the only damage shown, if any, was for five acres of corn that' had been planted, and that no mathematician on earth could possibly figure $350 damages from the evidence. We find that there was testimony to support the amount of the verdict.
The case having been reversed and remanded on a question that appellant was not entitled to raise on this appeal, our former judgment is set aside, and the judgment of the district court affirmed.