Court Opinion

ID: 9827171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:14:49.426436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:25.333545
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[19] Appellant seems to think that it is the duty of appellate courts to decide as to whether a verdict is excessive, even though no complaint is made of excess by the party affected. The ruling of the courts is to the contrary. Railway v. Hadnot, 67 Tex. 503, 4 S. W. 138; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Perry, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 243, 70 S. W. 439. If an appellant is not dissatisfied with the amount of a verdict, a court has no authority to raise the question.
[20] The charges requested by appellant, which called for a general verdict, were properly rejected. In this list were the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth special charges, which were instructions to find for appellant tinder certain circumstances therein stated. The case having been submitted on special issues, the eight charges were properly rejected. Cole v. Crawford, 69 Tex. 124, 5 S. W. 646; Southern Oil Co. v. Wallace, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 12, 54 S. W. 638; Moore v. Pierson, 93 S. W. 1007; Pac. Express Co. v. Rudman, 145 S. W. 268; Hengy v. Hengy, 151 S. W. 1133. The eight charges requiring a general verdict are those whose rejection is complained of in the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-second, and twenty-third assignments of error. The court did not err in rejecting the charges.
The twenty-fifth assignment of error was fully considered by the court in spite of the fact that it was not supported by a proper statement of facts.- A number of the assignments of error were considered by this court, although they failed to conform to rules that have been adopted in order to save labor and expedite the work of the courts.
[21] The defects in the brief are sought to be excused on the .ground that the cause was set down for submission so short a time after it was filed in this court. If the law had been complied with, the brief would have been prepared and a copy of it filed with the clerk of the district court not less than five days before the transcript was filed in this court. Vernon’s Sayles’ Stats, art. 2115. The law contemplates that appellants should be ready to submit their cases when they file their transcripts.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.