Court Opinion

ID: 9830718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:24:46.372322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:25.984717
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
After due consideration of this motion, we find no reason for changing the judgment heretofore rendered. We do not agree with appellee’s contention that this case comes within the rule announced and applied by this court in Hill v. Houser, 51 Tex. Civ. App. 359, 115 S. W. 113, and other cases cited; nor do we agree with the contention that there was evidence tending to show that the defendant or his employees drove and herded any cattle upon the plaintiff’s land.
[4] Counsel for appellee contend that if that be not true, it should be presumed that no part of the $500, awarded by the jury to the plaintiff, was for any damage caused by the cattle. That contention is not supported by the record. On the contrary, in answer to the third special issue submitted by the court, the jury found that the defendant committed the trespasses upon the plaintiff’s land alleged in his petition. It was alleged that the. trespasses referred to consisted of herding the defendant’s sheep and cattle on plaintiff’s land; and therefore that finding of the jury was that the defendant had herded both cattle and sheep upon plaintiff’s land.
In response to the fourth issue submitted. *717the jury found that the reasonable market value, at the times and place of the alleged trespasses, of the grass and herbage on the plaintiff’s land, which was destroyed or consumed by the defendant’s sheep and cattle, was 5500. That finding indicates that the jury allowed something for injury done by the defendant’s cattle. So, it affirmatively appears from the record that the appellant was injured by the charge complained of and copied in our original opinion. Motion overruled.
Motion overruled.