Court Opinion

ID: 9831261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:58:27.386626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:26.185649
License: Public Domain

Oh Motion for Rehearing.
In their separate motions both litigants have sought a reconsideration of this cause, appellant asking a rendition in his favor and the appellee an affirmance in his.
Appellee apparently concedes that the logic of an adherence to our former conclusions would properly lead to an entry of judgment ■here for his antagonist, instead of a remand for further hearing below, but very earnestly and ably insists that the question upon which this court’s decision rested was not properly before it, and, if it was, that the determination thereof was erroneous.
We conclude that neither of these contentions can prevail. The effect of our first holding was to sustain appellant’s claim that his request for an instructed verdict should have been granted by the trial court. Ap-pellee objected originally to a consideration of that matter, and now renews it, upon the assertion that it had been waived, through being presented only upon the termination of plaintiff’s evidence below, and not renewed at the close of all the evidence. Such, however, is not the effect of the record, as we view it. True the formal motion for per*352emptory instruction was filed at tlie completion of tlie plaintiff’s testimony, but tlie bills of exception show that objection was later repeatedly made to the court’s charge as a whole, and separately to every fact question therein submitted to the jury, on the ground that it tendered irrelevant and immaterial issues, in that it appeared from the entire testimony that defendant was legally entitled to the possession of the car under the terms of hils mortgage. As prescribed in articles 1971 and 1973, Revised Statutes, these objections could only have been presented after all the evidence had been concluded. In these circumstances it cannot be said that a waiver of a previously asserted right to complain at the submission of the cause to a jury is shown.
On the merits, our original decision of the controlling question presented by the appeal is still thought to be sound. It follows that appellee’s motion must be overruled, which is accordingly done.
We also conclude that no basis is left upon which the court below could ascertain any fact or assess any damage, and that this court should proceed to render such judgment as should have been entered there. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is therefore granted, and judgment is here rendered in his favor for possession of the automobile, the same to be held and disposed of by him only in accord with the terms of the mortgage, this decree to be without prejudice to any right of action the appellee may hereafter assert for damages growing out of any wrongful delay upon appellant’s part in proceeding to a foreclosure, such damages in no event to include the value of the use of the car.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing granted, trial court’s judgment reversed, and judgment rendered for appellant.