Court Opinion

ID: 9775075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:42:59.975579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:19.903027
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
This court’s dismissal of the appeal in this case was based upon failure on the part of appellant to lay proper foundation-for any appeal from the judgment entered in-the trial court.
In an able argument in his motion for rehearing, appellant urges that his appeal1 Í9 proper even without having filed a motion for new trial as prerequisite thereof,, even though it was a case tried before a jury.
Appellant contends that in the light of the pleadings and the evidence certain actions on the part of the trial court constructively operated so as to constitute a peremptory instruction to the jury.
■ Irrespective of the merit of appellant’s contention in this regard, the rules of civil procedure have closed the door to. appellate courts in any consideration thereof, and logically so, for it would be unreasonable to require a trial judge, without any motion for new trial raising the point that certain of his actions in fact amounted to a peremptory instruction to the jury-even though no affirmative act on his part instructing such jury peremptorily was. made, to re-examine all that had occurred to determine whether the jury was constructively so instructed. Such would place an intolerable burden upon the judges, of the trial courts and also would amount to the taking of an improper advantage of such a court because it would disallow any-consideration by him of the propriety of his acts upon an open presentation of them, to him in a motion for new trial.
*375The rules of civil procedure, and particularly Rule 324, T.R.C.P., could not contemplate the availability to a dissatisfied litigant of appellate relief under such conditions.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.