Court Opinion

ID: 9832396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:52:48.16745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:46.376576
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
We have given careful consideration to the motion for rehearing and for additional fact conclusions and argument in support thereof, but find no new point advanced by appellants.
We refuse the motion for additional fact conclusions because the requested findings go only to the point that appellants raised the issues of limitation by the evidence introduced by them sufficient to send the case to the jury. But it must be borne in mind that appellants lost their case before the jury and in affirming the judgment of the lower court, based on the verdict, it is necessary—we should probably say proper—to show only that the verdict has reasonable support in the evidence. To make a further statement of the facts, as appellants now request, would only needlessly éxtend the opinion.
On the issue of encroachment we agree with appellants’ contention that by their pleadings they sufficiently identified their inclosuresi. But that alone was not sufficient to support their claim. The evidence was sharply conflicting as to the location and extent of the inclosed land and in view of that fact,' to recover the inclosures it was necessary for appellants to -have a jury finding upon this conflicting testimony.
Appellants ask us to reverse and remand the case to enable them to develop morei fully their theory of the facts, citing in support of this proposition Vergara v. Myers, 239 S. W. 942, by the Supreme Court, speaking through Judge Cureton. As we understand the rulings of our courts it is never proper to reverse a judgment rendered in favor of the appellee merely that appellant may (have a second chance to prove his case. Where one loses his ease before a jury because of insufficient evidence, he has no right to a second trial based upon the proposition that if given •another chance he could strengthen his case before the jury.
All points of law raised in the motion for-rehearing are disposed of to our satisfaction in the original opinion. It follows that the motion for rehearing should be overruled and it is accordingly so ordered.