# Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Heath

> Court of Appeals of Texas · June 6, 1946 · 197 S.W.2d 130

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9834489

## Case

- **Full name:** Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Heath
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** June 6, 1946
- **Citations:** 197 S.W.2d 130; 1946 Tex. App. LEXIS 572
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Cody
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9834489

## Opinion text

On Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing.
We have concluded that we erred in sustaining appellant’s point 18. Appellee has brought up the motion in response to which the judgment was entered. The motion requests the court to enter the judgment in the form of the judgment attached to said motion, and it is made to appear that appellant duly received and read the motion and the form of judgment so requested to be entered. The form of the judgment upon its face clearly indicated that the answer of the jury to special issue No. 13 was eliminated therefrom, and the motion was tantamount to moving the court to disregard the jury finding thereon. The record discloses that appellant understood that appellee was moving the court to disregard the jury finding on said issue. After mature deliberation we believe it error to hold that the court’s jurisdiction to disregard said jury issue was not invoked. It in fact exercised such jurisdiction, and appellant made no objection to the form in which such jurisdiction was invoked. We therefore grant ap-pellee’s motion for rehearing.
In our original opinion we held that appellant’s points 19 and 20 were without merit, but did not set them forth because we sustained point 18.
Appellant’s point 19 reads: The court erred in entering judgment for $20 per week for 401 weeks, because there was no sufficient legal evidence to support the answer of the jury to issues Nos. 14 and 15.
In answer to special issues Nos. 14 and 15, the jury found, upon what we consider sufficient evidence, that another employee of the same class as appellee worked substantially the whole of the year and that such employee’s average daily wage was $9.
Appellant’s point 20 reads: The court erred in submitting Issue No. 13, because there was no sufficient legal evidence to support a finding thereon. We have sufficiently indicated our views on the submission of Special Issue No. 13, and of the court’s action in disregarding the jury’s answer thereto.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing is granted, our former judgment set aside, and the trial court’s judgment is now affirmed.
Rehearing granted, former judgment set aside, and judgment affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9834489. Public record. Not legal advice.