The opinion
On Motion for Rehearing.
Upon more mature consideration we have concluded that there is error in the original decision in overruling appellant’s assignment to the court’s action in refusing the requested charge set out in the original opinion.
Article 2189, R. S. 1925, requires the court, where the case is submitted upon special issues, to submit such explanations and definitions of legal terms as shall be necessary to enable the jury to properly pass upon and render a verdict on such issues. This article has been construed to confer upon the parties the right to have its terms strictly complied with when such right is properly invoked. Fox v. Dallas Hotel Co., Ill Tex. 461, 240 S. W. 517 .
While we are of the opinion that the special charge requested was not strictly correct, it was nevertheless sufficient to' call the court’s attention to the fact that his submission of the case left the jury without any guide whatever in determining the meaning of the term “value,” which was the basis of the only issue submitted.
It is believed that the authorities support the proposition that, where such definitions or explanations as provided for in article 2189 are omitted entirely from the court’s charge, a requested charge, even though incorrect, is sufficient to call the court’s attention thereto, and that the subsequent failure of the court to supply the omission is reversible error. G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Cusenberry, 86 Tex. 525 , 26 S. W. 43 ; Rounds v. Coleman (Tex. Civ. App.) 214 S. W. 496 ; Collins v. Megason (Tex. Civ. App.) 228 S. W. 583 .
The other points discussed are believed to have been correctly decided. Oh account of the failure of the court to give to the jury an instruction as to the meaning of the term “value,” the motion for rehearing of appellant is granted, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded.