Fisher Construction Company v. Riggs
| Decision Date | 03 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. A-7213,A-7213 |
| Citation | 325 S.W.2d 126,160 Tex. 23 |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Parties | FISHER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. Robert E. RIGGS et al., Respondents. |
McGregor, Sewell & Junell, Dyess, Dyess & Prewett, Houston, Edgar N. Brown and Coleman Gay, Austin, for petitioners.
Blakeley & Williams, Peyton, Huckeba & Swenson, Houston, for respondents.
The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals is published in 320 S.W.2d 200, 208.
None of the points of error brought to this court require reversal of the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, except Point 8 which challenges the rule adopted by the Court of Civil Appeals in passing on the sufficiency of the evidence to support jury findings. The petitioners contended in the courts below that the answers of the jury to several material issues were contrary to the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence. In passing upon those points, the Court of Civil Appeals announced this rule:
(1) The rule announced is applicable only when the question is one of no evidence, and is not applicable in determining whether the answers of the jury are contrary to the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence. In determining that question it is the duty of the Court of Civil Appeals to consider all the evidence, including that which is contrary to the verdict. In re King's Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660; Harrison v. Chesshir, Tex.Sup., 320 S.W.2d 814; Watson v. Prewitt, Tex.Sup., 320 S.W.2d 815.
(2) This court is without jurisdiction to determine the question of the weight and preponderance of the evidence, and since the rule announced by the Court of Civil Appeals is incorrect, the case must be returned to that court for a decision under the correct rule of the points raising the question of weight and preponderance of the evidence. Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. That court will enter judgment in accordance with its decision on those points.
Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bass v. Aransas County Independent School Dist.
...No. 2 and No. 3, and that such answers were not contrary to the overwhelming preponderance of the testimony. Fisher Construction Co. v. Riggs, 160 Tex. 23, 325 S.W.2d 126. Tatton v. Aransas County, 4th Court of Civil Appeals, 359 S.W.2d 200, n. w. h., arose in Aransas County, and also invol......
-
Peerenboom v. HSP Foods, Inc.
...reasonably anticipate that employees of its subcontractors might take a shortcut through store space), rev'd on other grounds, 160 Tex. 23, 325 S.W.2d 126 (1959); Bohn Bros. v. Turner, 182 S.W.2d 419, 421-22 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1944, writ ref'd w.o.m.) (store should anticipate that some c......
-
Tubb v. Bartlett
...1989, writ denied); Fisher Construction Co. v. Riggs, 320 S.W.2d 200, 211 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston), rev'd on other grounds, 160 Tex. 23, 325 S.W.2d 126 (1959). The costs may be recovered based on a right implied by law or a right arising under the contract. Continental Steel, 772 S.W.2d at 5......
-
Papco, Inc. v. Eaton
...320 S.W.2d 200 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston 1959); remanded for proper application of the law as to the sufficiency of evidence; 160 Tex. 23, 325 S.W.2d 126 (1959), and affirmed upon remand, 326 S.W.2d 915 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston 1959); Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. O'Leary, 136 S.W. 601, 604--......