Oil Well Supply Co. v. Marchman

(after stating the facts as above). We are not satisfied it was error to grant the new trial on the grounds specified in the trial court’s order (Conlisk v. Bender [Tex. Civ. App.] 245 S. W. 941; Harvey v. Ry. Co. [Tex. Civ. App.] 261 S. W. 197; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Harvey [Tex. Com. App.] 276 S. W. 895; Id. [Tex. Com. App.] 278 S. W. 839; Coons v. Culp [Tex. Civ. App.] 278 S. W. 914); but, if we were, we would not disturb the judgment, for, as we view the record, there is nothing in it showing the new trial should not have been granted on other grounds of the motion. If it should have…