Court Opinion

ID: 9826842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 16:46:09.284047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:53:18.545115
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON PETITION FOR A REHEARING AND FOR AN ADDITIONAL FINDING OF FACTS.
We are asked by the defendants to reconsider and reverse our holding that this suit may be maintained on the Florida judgment without a revivor in the Florida court. We have re-examined the question, but we are satisfied with our former holding and the petition for a rehearing is denied.
We are also asked to set out in full the cross-examination of complainants’ witness Carver, and to find “that said Carver could not identify the defendant R. A. Jackson as the man with whom he talked about the case when said Carver attempted (in his examination in chief) to state certain statements that he, Carver, testified about having made to him.”
We think the petition, insofar as it seeks the additional finding of facts above indicated, is based upon a miswmception of the functions of this Court in jury cases. When the trial court peremptorily in*281structs the jury to return a verdict for one of the parties, as in the instant case, a question of law, and not a question of fact, is presented on appeal to this Court. Norman v. Railroad, 119 Tenn., 401, 422, 104 S. W., 1088.
In such ease, it is not for the trial judge, or this Court, but for the jury, to determine whether or not any witness has been discredited by any of the invalidating modes recognized by law, including cross-examination. Frank v. Wright, 140 Tenn., 535, 542-543; Welch v. Young, 11 Tenn. App., 431, 440.
The cross-examination of the witness Carver, if copied into our opinion, would be surplusage, for, if a petition for certiorari is filed to obtain a review of our judgment, the Supreme Court will examine all the evidence in the record in order to ascertain whether there is any material evidence supporting the rights of the parties ag'ainst whom the motion is made. “Where there is no controversy as to any material fact there is nothing for the jury to find; the question is then solely one of law for the Court, and in such a case the Court may instruct the jury to return a verdict in accordance with his view of the law applicable to such ascertained or uncontroverted facts. There can be no constitutional exercise of the power to direct a verdict in any case in which there is a dispute as to any material evidence or any legal doubt as to the conclusion to be drawn from the whole evidence, upon the issues to be tried.” Tyrus v. Railroad, 114 Tenn., 579, 593, 86 S. W., 1074; Railroad v. Morgan, 132 Tenn., 1, 5, 175 S. W., 1148; Southern Ice Co. v. Black, 136 Tenn., 391, 401, 189 S. W., 861; Brenizer v. N. C. & St. L. Railway, 156 Tenn., 479, 483, 3 S. W. (2d), 1053, 8 S. W. (2d), 1099; Stanley Bird Motor Co. v. Alley, 1 Tenn. App., 202, 206; Mayor & City Council v. Reese, 138 Tenn., 471, 479, 197 S. W., 492; Hines v. Partridge, 144 Tenn., 219, 232, 231 S. W., 16; Wildman Mfg. Co. v. Davenport Hosiery Mills, 147 Tenn., 551, 556, 249 S. W., 984; Wylie v. Green River Lumber Co., 8 Tenn. App., 373, 379; Williams v. Bass, 8 Tenn. App., 482, 489.
The petition is denied and dismissed at the cost of petitioners.
Crownover and DeWitt, JJ., concur.