Court Opinion

ID: 9830387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:09:57.193784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:20.770258
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Special Issue No. 1 submitted to the jury was: “What sum of money, if any, was owing by Bargent to Etheridge when their business associations ceased? Answer in dollars and cents.”
The jury answered “$329.00.” Appellee certainly pleaded that appellant owed him at least $425. Still it is earnestly contended that there was no pleading to support the verdict. A careful analysis of the argument discloses that appellant recognizes no distinction between the special issue itself and the instructions of the court accompanying same. In our opinion such distinction is important. If the verdict (in this case the above question and answer) is not supported by the pleadings, there is fundamental error. Sivalls Motor Co. v. Chastain (Tex. Civ. App.) 5 S.W.(2d) 185. If, however, the subject-matter of the verdict be within the terms of the pleading, the judgment thereon cannot be disturbed, however erroneous the instructions of the court, of which no complaint is made. In Sivalls Motor Co. v. Chastain, supra, a judgment was sought to be reversed because of the erroneous submission of a special issue. No bill of exception had been taken. We were compelled to hold that we could hot disturb the judgment on that ground because, under mandate of the statute (R. S. art. 2185), the error was waived. But it happened in that case that the very objection made to the giving of the special issue was that there was no pleading to support it. We held that, although we could not consider the error of the court in submitting the special issue, being the error assigned and relied on for a reversal, yet it was our duty to take notice of the fundamental error in basing a judgment on a verdict not supported by the pleadings.
The difference in that case and this is that *979here the verdict itself is supported by the pleadings. The gravamen of appellant’s complaint seems to be that the court, by its instructions to the jury, directed them to consider matters beyond the scope of appellee’s pleading in arriving at their verdict. If the instructions had such effect and should be conceded to be error, the provisions of article 2185 supra, pronounce as the consequence of not having made timely objection to the giving of the instruction the taking of a proper bill of exception, and urging an assignment here to that effect, that such error is waived.
The motion for rehearing will be overruled.