Court Opinion

ID: 9828028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:01:30.242428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:41.754219
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In our original opinion in this case we refused to consider propositions 8 to 14, inclusive, found in appellant’s brief, some of which complain of the admission of evidence and others of the rejection of evidence offered by appellant. We held that, as appellant had not in its motion for new trial filed in the trial court, nor by any form of assignment of error filed either in this or the trial court, complained of the admission or rejection of evidence, we should not be required to consider the propositions found in appellant’s brief purporting to assign errors in the admission and rejection of evidence by the trial court.
Appellant has filed a book; of 182 pages of unusual size in this coui't, constituting its motion for new trial, by which it complains, among other things; of our refusal to consider propositions 8 to 14, inclusive, found in appellant’s brief.
We were of opinion when the original opinion was prepared, and are still of opinion that when a losing litigant asks the trial court to grant him a new trial upon specified supposed errors made in the trial of the case, all acts of the trial court complained of during the trial bub not complained of in the motion for new trial should be considered as waived. The purpose of requiring the filing of a motion for new', trial in cases tried before a jury, as a prerequisite to appeal, is to present to the trial judge the assignments upon which the party relies for the setting-aside of the judgment against him and the granting of a new trial. Complaints made *530of any act of tlie court in the conduct of the trial not presented in the motion for new trial should, in our opinion, be considered as waiyed. In this case, appellant filed its motion for new trial in the trial court which, when copied in type into the transcript, covers twenty-four pages, and which contains fifty -assigned reasons why the trial court, should set aside its judgment and grant appellant a new trial. In other words, in such motion appellant has presented to the trial judge fifty supposed errors upon which it relied for a setting aside of the trial court’s judgment, not one of which asserts that the court erred in the admission of evidence or the rejection of evidence offered by it.
We are of opinion that under such circumstances this court should) not be required to correct an error, if any, which the trial court might have corrected, and probably would have corrected had it been ashed to do so, by motion for rehearing. We think it should be held that appellant waived his exceptions taken relative to the admission and rejection of evidence. We think the rule stated in the ease of Bustamante v. Haynes (Tex. Civ. App.) 55 S.W.(2d) 137, at page 141, where it is said: “We will close this digression by expressing the conviction that article 1757 [Revised Statutes], as amended, in no manner lessens the obligation of the litigant to apprise the trial court of the complaints and contentions he expects to urge on appeal. The statutes relating to and requiring motions for new trial below and the preservation of the record thereon are not affected by article 1757, and are still in full force” — - should be the rule to be applied in the present case.
In Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. v. Hamrick, 60 S.W.(2d) 247, 250, by the Dallas court, it is said: •
“In assignment No. 11, defendant complains of the action of the court in refusing to direct a verdict in its favor, and in assignment No. 12, complains of the action of the court in admitting in evidence, over its objection, testimony of plaintiff detailing the conversation between him and Lankford at the time the application for the insurance was being taken.
“These assignments cannot be considered, because urged for the first time on appeal. Occurrences during the progress of the trial (except fundamental errors), unless specified in the motion for new trial, will be considered waived (see subdivision 3, art. 2232, R. S. 1925), and cannot be considered, although embodied in the brief filed on appeal. This provision of article 2232 was not changed by the amendment to article 1844, chapter 75, page 117, Acts of 1931 (Vernon’s Ann. Oiv. St. art. 1844).”
See, also, Fischer v. Fischer (Tex. Civ. App.) 57 S.W.(2d) 314, decided February 3, 1983; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Greer, an Arkansas case, 58 S.W.(2d) 424; and Whitehead v. Bank, a Missouri case, 52 S.W.(2d) 833; Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co. of N. Y. v. McCarvell (Tex. Civ. App.) 60 S.W.(2d) 1061.
However, since the Commission of Appeals in the case of Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Booles, 276 S. W. 667, have held to a view contrary to that expressed by us, we have examined and considered appellant’s propositions Nos. 8 to 14, inclusive, each of which is either complaint of the admission or rejection of evidence by the trial court of which no mention was made in the motion for new trial presented to the trial court, or by any assignments of error.
After a careful examination and consideration of such propositions, we have reached the conclusion that, if any error is shown, it is not such asi would require or authorize a reversal of the judgment.
The motion for rehearing is refused.
Refused.