Court Opinion

ID: 9763627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:50:52.558453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:46.963769
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellants have filed a motion for rehearing assigning nine points of error.
*325Pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.P. 455, appellants also request that we make and file supplemental findings upon the following eviden-tiary matters:
1. The evidence, or basis in the record, upon which the Court of Appeals finds that appellant Livingston was a principal or actual party to the alleged contract upon which appellee attempted to prove a cause of action for venue purposes.
2. The evidence or basis in the record upon which the Court of Appeals finds that appellant Livingston either made or breached a contract with the appellee.
3. The evidence or basis in the record upon which the Court of Appeals finds that the witness Elliston possessed sufficient knowledge of the accuracy, or completeness of the documents with regard to which he testified in order to render either his testimony or the documents of any probative value.
Rule 455 does not compel us to make evidentiary findings or repeat the evidence of the trial court record. City of Beaumont v. Graham, 441 S.W.2d 829 (Tex.1969). Indeed, we have no jurisdiction to make evi-dentiary findings. Moore v. Copeland, 478 S.W.2d 573 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1972, writ ref’d n. r. e.).
Appellants also request that we make the following supplemental finding:
4. The basis upon which the Court of Appeals concludes that Mr. Elliston’s testimony relating to the original negotiations, the execution or making of the alleged contract, and the terms and delivery schedules of the alleged oral contract in question was not hearsay.
The basis upon which we concluded that the trial court admitted Mr. Elliston’s testimony as an exception to the hearsay rule is set forth in our original opinion.
We find that the evidence is factually sufficient to support the implied findings of the trial court.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.