Walker v. Haley
| Decision Date | 25 June 1919 |
| Docket Number | (No. 2917.) |
| Citation | 214 S.W. 295 |
| Parties | WALKER et al. v. HALEY. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
J. D. Martin, of San Antonio, for plaintiffs in error.
W. Van Sickle, of Alpine, Geo. M. Thurmond, of Del Rio, and W. B. Teagarden, of San Antonio, for defendant in error.
The suit was an action by Haley against Walker and Bird in trespass to try title for certain land. The trial court directed a verdict for the plaintiff.
The honorable Court of Civil Appeals refused to consider the appellant's assignments touching the peremptory instruction for the reason that on the trial they presented no objection to it before it was read to the jury— being of the view that the Act of 1913 (chapter 59), providing that objections to "the charge" of the court shall be made before it is read to the jury, and, otherwise, shall be considered as waived, applies to a peremptory instruction. Because of the conflict between the decisions of the Courts of Civil Appeals upon this question, the writ of error was granted.
It is the intention of a law which is the law, and once truly ascertained, it should prevail, even against the strict letter of the law.
The purpose of the act is plain. It is to provide the court, in advance, with the objections to which the charge is deemed subject, so as to afford opportunity for its correction in the particulars urged. It is, in a word, to secure, as far as possible, the preparation and submission of a correct charge to the jury. It is not the intention of the act, in our opinion, that it should in anywise relate to a decision by the court that there is no issue to submit to the jury, and hence no office for a charge to perform and no function for the jury to exercise.
When a court determines upon a peremptory instruction, the ruling decides the cause. It is a determinative decision upon the effect of the evidence. It is reached, as a rule in the actual practice, only after the argument of counsel in which the opposing view is presented and of which the court has the full benefit. Since the action of the court is a ruling on the effect of the evidence, there is nothing for counsel to object to after the ruling is determined....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State for Benefit of Workmen's Compensation Fund v. E. W. Wylie Co., 7288
...do so it is compelled to restrain the * * * letter.' Vermont Loan & Trust Co. v. Whithed, 2 N.D. 82, 49 N.W. 318, 319. In Walker v. Haley, 110 Tax. 50, 214 S.W. 295, it is said: 'It is the intention of a law which is the law, and once truly ascertained, it should prevail, even against the s......
-
Southern Underwriters v. Boswell
...insufficient to require a review by us of the instruction. Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Petersilka, Tex.Civ.App., 176 S.W. 70; Walker v. Haley, 110 Tex. 50, 214 S.W. 295; Norwich Union Indemnity Co. v. Wilson, Tex. Civ.App., 17 S.W.2d 68, writ dismissed; Abilene & S. Ry. Co. v. Herman, Tex.Civ. ......
-
Wise v. City of Abilene
...the objection must be more than a mere statement that he objects— it must point out the error complained of. See, also, Walker v. Haley, 110 Tex. 50, 214 S.W. 295. "An objection that a definition is `not full enough and omits some of the essentials of a correct definition' is too general; s......
-
Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Maxwell
...522, 295 S.W. 920; Perkins v. Nevill, Tex.Com.App., 58 S.W.2d 50; Gulf, T. & W. Ry. v. Dickey, 108 Tex. 126, 187 S.W. 184; Walker v. Haley, 110 Tex. 50, 214 S.W. 295; Ford Motor Co. v. Maddin, 124 Tex. 131, 76 S.W.2d 474; Chisos Mining Co. v. Llanez, Tex.Civ.App., 298 S.W. 642; Gulf, C. & S......