Court Opinion

ID: 9831882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:27:01.003963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:38.816219
License: Public Domain

On Motions for Rehearing.
Upon reconsideration of the record in relation to the question of misconduct of the jury, upon which proposition the judgment was reversed, we are convinced that the record sustains the assignment, and that under the law as it now exists we are correct in reversing the judgment for that reason alone.
In view of another trial, it became the duty of the court to discuss the other matters, which was done incidentally. We concluded from the record that the Marigold Company of Delaware, and not the Marigold Company of Texas, was a part owner of the lease. If we are correct in this, then the Marigold Company of Delaware is a necessary party to the suit, and in view of these conditions we suggested the necessity of a repleader before another trial. Because the statement of facts is not so prepared and authenticated as to entitle it to consideration, we could not definitely announce a conclusion upon the other matters urged in the brief, aside from the question of misconduct of the jury. As to that contention, the record is complete, the evidence bearing upon the issue being part of the statement of facts and incorporated in the transcript. We did not consider the statement of facts further than to discuss the various defects shown.
Both motions for rehearing are overruled.