Court Opinion

ID: 9834338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:29:42.358182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:13.878409
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Counsel for appellant insist in their motion that tbe testimony of tbe plaintiff, Spears, was admitted over their objection interposed at tbe proper time, and that tbe court was in error in so qualifying tbe bill of exception as to make it appear that no objection was made. Tbe record before us does not support that statement. Tbe statement of facts shows that, after tbe plaintiff Spears bad testified at considerable length on direct and cross-examination, in which be stated some facts to which be might have testified, counsel fpr appellant made a general objection to ali of tbe testimony which bad been offered. The statement of facts further shows that, when taken on cross-examination, tbe witness was interrogated in detail about tbe execution of tbe written instrument upon which this suit was based, and that be testified fully as to tbe .transaction between himself and tbe decedent, Baker. We think tbe record sustains tbe qualification appended by tbe court to tbe bills of exception.
We are, however, inclined to tbe opinion that tbe testimony of Mrs. Spears was not admissible. We haye concluded, upon further examination, that the case of Martin v. McAdams, referred to as authority for admitting that testimony, is not in point. In that ease tbe witness was being interrogated regarding tbe signature of a decedent to a will. Tbe court held that tbe testimony as to tbe genuineness of tbe signature was admissible on tbe ground that making a will is not a transaction between tbe decedent and tbe beneficiary of tbe will. In this case the instrument was a contract entered into between tbe decedent and tbe husband of tbe witness. Its execution was a transaction between tbe decedent and tbe husband. Barnes v. Barnes (Tex. Civ. App.) 261 S. W. 485.
However, this case was tried before tbe court without a jury, and there was ample testimony by other witnesses, who were apparently disinterested, which supports tbe judgment of tbe trial court. That being true, tbe case should not be reversed because of an error in admitting some testimony which was not admissible.
Tbe motion for a' rehearing is overruled.