Court Opinion

ID: 9827903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:55:32.138376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:38.933649
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rebearing.
The appellant, upon motion for rehearing, suggests that:
“It was error for the values of oil and gas, as to drainage,' to have been submitted, jointly, in questions numbered 9 and 10, since no proof was made of the value of the oil.”
In the appellant’s brief the question of failure to introduce evidence as to the “amount and value of oil’! was made the basis for the proposition that the court erred in refusing to give the requested peremptory instruction for defendant. The opinion is confined to the latter, and not to the question as to whether it was error to submit the questions, because there was no evidence to support the charge. This question was not raised, either by exception to the charge or by motion for new trial, nor in the brief; só, even though there may not be evidence to support a finding for the amount and value of the oil, the question of erroneous charge has been waived under the statute. Article 1971, Vernon’s Sayles’ Revised Civil Statutes.
The motion is overruled.