Court Opinion

ID: 9828516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:27:14.418397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:49.927809
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In our original opinion, we held that the undisputed testimony showed that the attorney examining the title for Cunningham was aware of the $1,300 lien against the property, and upon this finding our action in reversing and rendering the case was based. This finding of fact was Based upon the testimony of Fordtran and the attorney, and, while it is not directly contradicted, yet, because of the peculiar relationship of the parties to the matters concerning which they testified, and some other circumstances connected with the entire transaction, the jury or court trying the cause might have been warranted in disregarding their testimony, and finding that the attorney was not notified of the lien.
Our former order, reversing and rendering the case, is therefore set aside, and same here now reversed and remanded.