Court Opinion

ID: 9770585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:11:03.468081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:23.376476
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
Correction has been made of the clerical error in the citation in the original opinion, which error was pointed out in appellant’s motion for rehearing.
We have read the authorities stressed in appellant’s motion as authority for believing our holding to be erroneous, and we find nothing in them which causes us to doubt the correctness of our disposition of the appeal. The cases are as follows: Veal v. Thomason, 138 Tex. 341, 159 S.W.2d 472; Rules 39 and 40, T.R.C.P.; Edsall v. Hutchings, Tex.Civ.App., 143 S.W.2d 700; McAdams v. Dallas Ry. & Term. Co., Tex., 229 S.W.2d 1012; Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Still, Tex.Civ.App., 163 S.W.*6622d 268; Brown v. Meyers, Tex.Civ.App., 163 S.W.2d 886. We do not believe these authorities are in point upon the present controversy.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.