Court Opinion

ID: 9833124
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:28:40.693329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:12:16.020549
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
This cause was remanded in view of appellant’s cross-action for damages. In the present motion 'plaintiff expresses willingness to waive this and asks that judgment be rendered here.
Plaintiff’s case as alleged failed of proof, as explained in the opinion.
There was no cause of action based on custom. But the trial court held upon objection to the testimony offered of custom that it was not necessary to allege it, hence ap-pellee might contend that, but for this ruling, it would have asked to file a trial amendment.
[8] Granting this, the proof relied on was clearly insufficient to prove a custom, and there was nothing to prevent plaintiff from making further proof on the subject, if it had any. Under these circumstances, plaintiff would not be entitled to a new trial on the theory that it might on another trial make sufficient proof of custom. Maverick v. Routh, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 669, 23 S. W. 596, 26 S. W. 1008.
We conclude that the motion should be granted, the judgment reversed, and judgment rendered here that plaintiff take nothing.