Wm. D. Cleveland & Sons v. Smith

119 S.W. 843, 102 Tex. 490, 1909 Tex. LEXIS 185
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJune 2, 1909
DocketNo. 1962.
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 119 S.W. 843 (Wm. D. Cleveland & Sons v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wm. D. Cleveland & Sons v. Smith, 119 S.W. 843, 102 Tex. 490, 1909 Tex. LEXIS 185 (Tex. 1909).

Opinions

"We are of opinion, however, that this error of the trial court does not require nor authorize a reversal of the judgment, because the undisputed evidence adduced upon the trial would have required a verdict in favor of the appellees, and if a jury had been impaneled to try the case it should have been instructed to find for the defendants. Such being the state of the evidence, no injury resulted to appellant from the refusal of the court to comply with its demand for a jury, and the error in refusing such demand was harmless. *Page 491

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
"In holding, in the main opinion in this case, that the error of the trial court in refusing appellant's request for a jury does not require a reversal of the judgment, because, had there been a trial by jury, no other verdict than one in favor of the appellees could have been properly rendered under the undisputed evidence adduced on the trial, we do not intend to announce the rule that a party who has been wrongfully deprived of his right to a jury trial is required to submit his cause to the court. It may be that the party thus denied a trial by jury can stand upon his rights and decline to offer any evidence or to recognize the right of the court to proceed with the trial, and in such case would be entitled to have any judgment which might be rendered against him reversed because of the refusal of the court to grant his request for a jury; but this record does not present a case of this kind. The judgment recites that after the refusal of the court to grant appellant's request for a jury the parties by their attorneys submitted `the matters in controversy, as well of fact as of law, to the court, and the evidence and argument of counsel having been heard and fully understood it is considered by the court,' etc. There is nothing in the record to negative the presumption that the facts of the case were fully developed. The appellant having submited its entire case to the court, and taken its chances on a favorable judgment, is not in the position to claim a reversal of the judgment because of the error of the court in refusing its request for a jury, when the case made by the undisputed evidence is one in which no other verdict than one in favor of appellees could have been rendered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America
148 S.W.3d 124 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
Duvall v. Sadler
711 S.W.2d 369 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1986)
Lopez v. Lopez
691 S.W.2d 95 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Echols v. Wells
510 S.W.2d 916 (Texas Supreme Court, 1974)
Knickerbocker v. Haley Transports, Inc.
386 S.W.2d 621 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1964)
Erback v. Donald
170 S.W.2d 289 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1943)
Arlington Heights Realty Co. v. Citizens' Ry. & Light Co.
160 S.W. 1109 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)
Gibson v. Singer Sewing MacH. Co.
147 S.W. 285 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Vernon Cotton Oil Co. v. Catron
137 S.W. 404 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 S.W. 843, 102 Tex. 490, 1909 Tex. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wm-d-cleveland-sons-v-smith-tex-1909.