Court Opinion

ID: 9828698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:37:58.670731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:51.988300
License: Public Domain

On Motions for Rehearing and to Certify Question to the Supreme Court.
[3] In Henderson v. Gilbert, 171 S. W. 304, the Court of Civil Appeals for the Seventh District held error of a trial court in peremptorily instructing a verdict to be fundamental; and in Railway Co. v. Higginbotham, 173 S. W. 482, the Court of Civil Appeals for the First 'District-.held error of a trial court in refusing such an instruction also to be fundamental. Because, in disposing of a contention made by appellant, we declared it to be our opinion that the refusal by. the trial court of a request to peremptorily instruct a verdict, if error, was not error “apparent on the face of the record,” within the meaning of article 1607, Vernon’s Statutes, appellant insists that our decision affirming the judgment against it is in conflict with the rulings made in the cases mentioned above. Whether a conflict exists as claimed or not depends upon whether the contention, made by appellant, which we did not determine, that the assignment copied into its original brief in effect was a complaint the trial court had refused a request by it to peremptorily instruct the jury in its favor or not. We are of opinion such was not the effect of that assignment. Moreover, having looked to the pleadings and testimo*621ny in tlie record, we are of opinion, if such is the effect of that assignment, it should be overruled, because the trial court should not have so instructed the jury.
The motions are overruled.