Anchor v. Martin

• Decision Date: 30 March 1927
• Docket Number: (No. 922-4696.)
• Citation: 292 S.W. 877
• Parties: ANCHOR v. MARTIN, District Judge, et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 877

292 S.W. 877

ANCHOR v. MARTIN, District Judge, et al.

(No. 922-4696.)

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

March 30, 1927.

Original mandamus by Marie Anchor against P. A. Martin, as District Judge, and others. Writ denied.

Bonner, Bonner & Fryer, of Wichita Falls, for relator.

Weeks, Morrow, Francis & Hankerson, of Wichita Falls, for respondent Farmers' State Bank.

J. H. Aynesworth, of Stinnett, for respondent Lila C. Anchor.

P. A. Martin, of Wichita Falls, pro se.

BISHOP, J.

On trial before a jury in the case of Marie Anchor, plaintiff, against Lila Anchor, W. H. Anchor, and Farmers' State Bank of Burkburnett, in the Eighty-Ninth district court of Wichita county, the material issues made by the pleadings were submitted on special issues. The jury rendered verdict finding for the plaintiff on all fact issues submitted. She filed motion with form of judgment attached, asking that judgment be entered in her favor on the verdict. Defendants filed motion to set aside the verdict for the reason (a) that some of the material issues submitted to the jury were without evidence to support them, and (b) because the verdict was contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. These motions were disposed of by the court by orders as follows:

"On this the 27th day of September, A. D. 1926, came on to be heard the motions filed by the Farmers' State Bank of Burkburnett and Lila C. Anchor to set aside the verdict of the jury, on the ground that same is unsupported by the evidence and contrary to the great and overwhelming preponderance of the evidence; and same being considered by the court, and it appearing to the court that said verdict is contrary to the evidence and is unsupported by the great and overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, it is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that said verdict be set aside and held for naught and a mistrial be declared."

"October 2, 1926. On motion of defendants, the verdict of the jury has been set aside by the court, and this judgment is therefore refused; to which action of the court the plaintiff excepts."

Marie Anchor, alleging the facts above stated, is here seeking by writ of mandamus to require P. A. Martin, judge of said court, to enter judgment in her favor on the verdict rendered by the jury.

Our statutes provide that the court shall render judgment on a special verdict unless same is "set aside or a new trial is granted" (article 2209, Revised Civil Statutes 1925),...