Court Opinion

ID: 9771567
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:47:32.066212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:17.695306
License: Public Domain

CANTU, Justice,
concurring.
I agree that the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for new trial because in reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non mov-ant’s case, Burt v. Lochausen, 151 Tex. 289, 249 S.W.2d 194 (1952), it cannot be said that there exists no evidence that supports the general issue submitted to the jury.
Under Special Issue No. 11 the jury was authorized to return an affirmative answer if it found any evidence reflecting a wrongful disqualification of the appellant’s horse.
The only theory advanced for disqualification under the testimony finds its basis under the American Quarter Horse Association’s Rules 28 and 29.2 Thus, there is no reason in the record for considering rules 113 and 1143 as a basis for disqualification. Moreover any discussion addressing a failure to comply with these rules is immaterial to the disposition of this case since the jury finding cannot find support in a theory that never arose. It is conceded by appel-lees that they did not comply with rules 113 and 114. But it is furthermore uncontra-verted that these rules played no part in the disqualification. Thus only rules 28 and 29 can be the basis for a finding of wrongful disqualification.
If there is any evidence of probative force that indicates a wrongful disqualification under rules 28 and 29 the trial court was not authorized to enter a judgment non obstante veredicto.
Under rule 28 disqualification was proper if it was shown that a medication or drug was administered or attempted to be administered. Under rule 29 a disqualification could be had if it was shown that a drug or hypodermic needle or similar instrument was in the possession of a participant.
Both the possession and/or use of drugs and paraphernalia were highly contested issues. Consequently, it was never conclusively established that either or both of the rules in question were violated. Thus there remained factual issues to be determined by the trier of fact from the existing conflicting evidence. Lockley v. Page, 142 Tex. 594, 180 S.W.2d 616 (1944).
Under a “no evidence” standard of review such as is raised by a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto the trial court was not authorized to set aside a jury finding supported by some evidence. Whiteman v. Harris, 123 S.W.2d 699 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1938, writ ref’d).
For the foregoing reasons I concur in the result.

. "Under all the facts and circumstances in this case, do you find that the defendant, Brady July Jubilee, Inc., wrongfully scratched the horse "Straw Cause” from the race in question.”

. Supra, m Majority Opinion.

. Supra, in Majority Opinion.