Court Opinion

ID: 9827397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:29:51.925418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:30.268880
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In our original opinion we did not discuss the reasons for remanding the cause for a new trial, but merely stated that under the answers to the certified questions the case must be remanded. Appellee has filed a motion for rehearing, in which the correctness of that holding is questioned. The contention is that, since the trial court did not submit to the jury any issue as to the prior oral negotiations leading up to the written contract, but submitted only an issue which would be proper under the warranty contained in the written contract, the error in admitting the evidence as to the oral agreements and negotiations was harmless. We are therefore urged to affirm the judgment of the trial court.
As desirable as it might be to end this prolonged litigation, we are unable to do so. on the record before us, considered in the light of the answers of the Supreme Court to the questions certified. Appellees declared' upon a contract in their petition partly oral and partly in writing. The Supreme Court has held that the contract was wholly in writing. A judgment on a contract wholly in, writing has no support in the pleadings, which declare upon a contract partly oral and partly in writing.
Furthermore, we are unable to hold that the error in admitting evidence of oral agreements was harmless. The rule with reference to when improper testimony will be held harmless is stated by the Commission of Appeals in the case of Bain Peanut Co. v. Pinson et al., 294 S. W. 536, in this language: “Where improper testimony in its nature calculated to prejudice is permitted, the appellate court must presume that harm resulted therefrom, unless it affirmatively appears from the record that it did not. The same rule of law applies to the introduction of improper evidence over objection as is applicable to improper remarks of counsel in argument or misconduct of the jury. Bell v. Blackwell (Tex. Com. App.) 283 S. W. 765; Britain v. Rice (Tex. Civ. App.) 183 S. W. 84.”
It does not affirmatively appear to us that this improper testimony did not influence the answers of the jury to the special issues submitted. In answer to special issue No. 4 the jury _ found, in substance, that the integral parts of the toilet system, at the timé its use was abandoned, had no value whatever. This answer was doubtless influenced in some degree by the improper testimony, for the only support for such a finding is in the fact that the system was not worth anything to the school as a toilet system. - The answer to this question was not supported by the testimony, and can be accounted for only upon the ground that the jury took into consideration the testimony of the oral contract to sell an installed system.
The motion for rehearing will be overruled.