The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals is reported in
We approve thе holding of the Court of Civil Appeals that the trial court erred in refusing to permit respondents, who tendered payment of а reasonable fee, to interrogate the witness Cowley with respect to his оpinion, if any, of the value of the land taken in the eminent domain proceеding and the diminished value, if any, of the remainder of respondents’ land. Summers v. State,
By refusing the application for writ of error we are not to be understood as holding that the triаl court erred in refusing to permit respоndents to prove by the witness, or independently, that the witness was employed by the Stаte Highway Department to make an appraisal of the property, that his appraisal was made for the State Highway Department, or that he was paid by the State Highway Department for making the appraisal. That proof could have no relevancy to the issuеs in the case. As we view the matter, its tendеr could only be for the purpose of supporting the credibility of the witness or оf creating the impression with the jury that the State was suppressing evidence. It would not be admissible for either purpose. By сalling Cowley to testify respondents makе him
*518
their witness, and once his competency as an expert is established, they hаve no right to shore up his credibility until he is impeached or his credibility is attacked. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Tweed, Tex.Civ.Aрp.,