ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In a motion for rehearing, appellants, Edwards Transports, Inc. and Tom Nations, contend that one of the grounds for our overruling of their first point of error is in conflict with the language in a previously uncited prior opinion of this Court, i.e., Davis v. Lewis, 487 S.W.2d 411 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1972, no writ).
In Davis, we held that if a defendant’s alleged interference with a contract is justified as a matter of law, a finding of actual malice is irrelevant. We still adhere to that principle of law. Our statement in the foregoing opinion that “the jury’s actual malice finding is tantamount to a no justification finding” is overly broad and in error.
In the present case, however, we are not faced with a factual situation similar to Davis v. Lewis, wherein we found justification as a matter of law. In resolving appellant’s third and fourth points of error, we concluded that he had not proven justification as a matter of law, and we further found that there was evidence to support the jury finding of tortious interference with contract. We further tested the evidence and found it to be sufficient; there*790fore, we overruled points of error five and six.
We further note that our resolution of point of error number one against appellant was not singularly based on our equation of a finding of malice to a finding of no justification. We find' point of error number one to have been properly overruled, for we are convinced that the burden of proving justification was properly placed on appellant, and the jury found appellant did not sustain his burden.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.