Court Opinion

ID: 9664469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:19:29.712328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:02.086849
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
We have herein considered the ten points of error as presented by appellants’ first motion for rehearing and have determined that they cannot be sustained.
Appellants have respectfully requested that we reconsider our previous opinion that the trial court did not commit error as raised by the fifth point in their brief, which point reads as follows:
“The Court erred in refusing to withdraw from the jury all evidence introduced for the purpose of attempting to secure an accounting and partitioning of the property of the estate of T. A. Summers, deceased, after the appellees dismissed their cause of action for partition of such property.”
Examining again appellants’ motion, as presented to the trial court at the conclusion of all the evidence, requesting the withdrawal from the jury of the evidence in question, we find the following to be relevant:
“The defendants * * * request the Court to withdraw from the consideration of the jury any testimony regarding any sale of timber by T. A. Summers and the receipt of any monies therefrom, and any testimony regarding the value of the land and timber described in any of plaintiffs’ pleadings * * * the evidence regarding any personal property, the testimony regarding the value of the land, and particularly, the evidence of the witness Jack Nerren.” (Italics ours.) The motion concluded with the request that the trial court withdraw from the jury all the foregoing evidence. (Italics ours.)
Appellants’ fifth point, and their assignments of error in their motion for new trial, was necessarily predicated on, and restricted to, the foregoing motion, and in view of our opinion that much of this evidence, along with evidence of much other personal property not specified in such motion, was proper on the question of mental capacity, we again conclude the same to have been a blanket motion which failed to properly specify such evidence as-was erroneous so as to thereby apprise the-trial court of that which should have been withdrawn, and that such motion was, therefore, properly refused. It is also noteworthy that appellants’ fifth point, as above-stated, complains only of the court’s failure-to withdraw all evidence therein alluded to.. The following are authorities that, under these circumstances, where much evidence is introduced, some of which may be admissible, and some inadmissible, the objecting party must specify that portion of the whole which is sought to be withdrawn as. inadmissible. Texas Pipeline Co. v. Ennis, Tex.Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d 773; Federal Crude Oil Co. v. Yount-Lee Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 73 S.W.2d 969, 981; Texas Employers Ins. Ass’n v. Neatherlin, Tex.Civ.App., 31 S.W.2d 673.
Having, therefore, requested the trial court to withdraw all the evidence-relating to the counts in partition and accounting, the motion was properly refused, and, consequently, we adhere to our original opinion that the resultant inference,, to the effect that appellants obtained much-more of T. A. Summers’ property, real and personal, than was natural was properly before the jury. The following authorities,, submitted by appellants, are not considered, to be in point as the facts here exist: Bain Peanut Co. of Texas v. Pinson, Tex.Com.App., 294 S.W. 536; Floyd v. Fidelity nion Casualty Co., Tex.Com.App., 39 S.W.2d 1091; Jones v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 82: S.W.2d 1035.
Appellants’ assignments of error, 1. through 5, and assignment 10, are by the-*759foregoing reasoning and authorities overruled. Assignments 6 through 9, having been previously determined, compel adherence to our original opinion, except, that it may be added, in deference to appellants’ misapprehension to the contrary, that our original opinion places little emphasis on the last illnesses of T. A. Summers, as testified to by appellants’ witnesses, except as such testimony might have affected such witnesses’ credibility before the jury.
Contained in the motion to withdraw, was also the request that defendants below be given more time to properly specify such evidence therein alluded to as was thought inadmissible, and the further request, in the alternative, that the court limit such evidence solely to the issue on mental capacity. These requests were by the court refused. Defendants have failed to assign such refusals in their motion for new trial and, as a result thereof, as appellants herein, they were unable to predicate points of error thereon, and consequently we may not consider their arguments in relation thereto.
The motion for rehearing is refused.