Court Opinion

ID: 9833072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:25:55.991516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:59.433741
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[3] Appellees in their motion for rehearing have called our attention to the act of 1913, page 114, wherein article 1971 of the Revised Statutes is so amended as to read as follows: “ * * * He [the court] shall * * * submit- all controverted questions of fact only to the decision of the jury.” In the instant case, the court submitted to the jury the issue as to when R. B. Lane gave the property to his wife Minnie B. Lane, and the effect of our decision is that the jury did not answer this question. If R. B. Lane ever gave the property to Minnie B. Lane, the court should not have propounded the question as to when such gift was made, as the uncontroverted evidence showed that such gift was made, if at all, prior to the time R. B. Lane became indebted to appellant. As such question should not have been propounded, it is immaterial that it was not answered.
The case was submitted on special issues, and the jury found that R. B. Lane gave the property to his wife. The evidence is not clear as to the two mules, but it is sufficient to sustain the verdict.
For the reasons stated, appellees’ motion for a rehearing is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Motion granted. Judgment affirmed. .