Tompkins v. Hooker

Decision Date03 February 1921
Docket Number(No. 2309.)
PartiesTOMPKINS et al. v. HOOKER et al.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Red River County; Ben H. Denton, Judge.

On appellants' motion for a rehearing. Order previously entered granting appellees' motion for rehearing set aside, and order overruling it entered; judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals first rendered, reversing and remanding the cause for new trial on all issues made by the pleadings and testimony, directed to stand as final.

For former opinion, see 226 S. W. 1114.

Lennox & Lennox, of Clarksville, for appellants.

Mahaffey, Keeney & Dalby and Chas. S. Todd, all of Texarkana, for appellees.

WILLSON, C. J.

Prior to the time he undertook to convey the 176.72 acres in controversy here, Pleasant Lawson conveyed tracts of 42.60 acres, 61.50 acres, 15 acres, 3.18 acres, and 2 acres, a total of 124.28 acres of the 301 acres Christine Lawson owned at the time of her death. The jury found on special issues submitted to them that 42 of the 42.60 acres was worth $9,450 per acre; that the 61.50 acres was worth without the improvements thereon $5,535, and with the improvements thereon $6,150 per acre; that the 15 acres were worth without the improvements thereon $1,250, and with the improvements $2,700 per acre; that the 3.18 acres, or 3.50 acres as the court treated same, was worth without the improvements $225, and with the improvements $650 per acre; and that the 2 acres was worth $100 per acre. According to these findings the parts so sold by Pleasant Lawson were worth without the improvements thereon a total of $762,638. The jury further found that 176 of the 176.72 acres in controversy here were worth without the improvements thereon $29,920, and with the improvements $33,440 per acre. In rendering judgment the trial court construed the findings as to the values of the several parts to be the values, respectively, of the entire tracts, and not the values thereof per acre as found by the jury. By their sixteenth assignment appellants challenged the right of the court to so construe said findings, and by their ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth assignments challenged the sufficiency of the testimony to support the findings. Having reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial when the record was considered for the first time, this court, on the theory that the questions made by the assignments would not arise when the case was again tried, did not consider same; and when the record was next before us on appellees' motion for a rehearing, due to the fault of the writer, overlooked, instead of then considering same as we should, before granting the motion and reforming and affirming the judgment in the respect we did. In this way this court fell into the same error the trial court did when he treated the findings of the jury referred to as findings of the total values of the several tracts instead of their values per acre, and based the judgment thereon. Having considered said assignments on appellants' motion...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Massie v. Hutcheson
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 27 Junio 1925
    ...77 S. W. 607; Fant v. Sullivan (Tex. Civ. App.) 152 S. W. 515; Swearingen v. Swearingen (Tex. Civ. App.) 193 S. W. 445; Thompkins v. Hooker (Tex. Civ. App.) 229 S. W. 351. We think the authorities unquestionably establish the proposition that if the trial court submits an issue to the jury ......
  • Maledon v. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 27 Octubre 1928
    ...a verdict is returned on special issues, as in the instant case. Pantaze v. Farmer (Tex. Civ. App.) 205 S. W. 521; Tompkins v. Hooker (Tex. Civ. App.) 229 S. W. 351. We are persuaded to believe that it was not the purpose of the court to disregard the findings of the jury on the special iss......
  • Hines v. Parks
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 14 Octubre 1936
    ...77 S.W. 607; Fant v. Sullivan (Tex.Civ.App.) 152 S.W. 515; Swearingen v. Swearingen (Tex.Civ.App.) 193 S.W. [442] 445; Tompkins v. Hooker (Tex.Civ.App.) 229 S.W. 351. "We think the authorities unquestionably establish the proposition that if the trial court submits an issue to the jury whic......
  • Hart v. Wilson
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 17 Noviembre 1926
    ...77 S. W. 607; Fant v. Sullivan (Tex. Civ. App.) 152 S. W. 515; Swearingen v. Swearingen (Tex. Civ. App.) 193 S. W. 445; Tompkins v. Hooker (Tex. Civ. App.) 229 S. W. 351. "We think the authorities unquestionably establish the proposition that, if the trial court submits an issue to the jury......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT