Court Opinion

ID: 9830191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:57:57.051639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:15.440343
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[6] No request was made by defendant for a peremptory instruction; on the contrary, he requested that four special charges be given, which request was granted. By these charges the jury was required to pass upon the issues of fact upon which he contends, upon this appeal, that the evidence is of such a character as to entitle him to a judgment. Having participated in having these issues submitted to the jury, he cannot be heard to say there was no evidence to justify their submission. I. & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Walker, 162 S. W. 921; Poindexter v. Kirby Lumber Co., 101 Tex. 326, 107 S. W. 42; St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Go. v. West, 131 S. W. 841; Alamo Dressed Beef Co. v. Yeargan, 123 S. W. 723. But we are of the opinion that appellant’s contention would be without merit even had he requested a peremptory instruction, and assigned error upon the failure of the court to give it, for the evidence is conflicting upon the points relied upon by him.
[7] The main issue in this case, as made by the pleadings, was whether appellant accepted the policy and agreed to pay the premium. Upon this issue there was a direct conflict between his testimony and that of appellee. There was also a direct conflict concerning the purpose for which the policy was redelivered to appellant, and appellee’s testimony on this point, and as to what he told Tips, is inconsistent with Tips’ testimony. The jury evidently believed that appellant accepted the policy upon condition that the acceptance would not oe binding unless Tips approved the company; that it became his property; and that no rescission of the trade took place. The evidence was undisputed that Tips expressed a favorable opinion in regard to the solvency of the company. The jury doubtless decided that Tips was mistaken about the instructions given him by appellee. It was the province of the jury to weigh the testimony, and’ choose between conflicts and inconsistencies therein, and it is immaterial whether or not we would have taken their view of it as an original proposition.
We adhere to our former conclusion that no error is shown which requires or justifies a reversal of the judgment. The motion for rehearing is overruled.