Court Opinion

ID: 9827526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:37:25.200159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:32.737839
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant, in his motion for rehearing, complains of the statement made by us in our opinion that O. O. Ballard, president of the company (the Park Terrace Company), who sold the lot to appellant, was called as a witness by appellant.
We admit that the statement complained of was inaccurate. The record shows that Ballard took the stand in behalf of himself and his codefendant Park Terrace Company.' We do not, however, consider that such erroneous statement could result in injury to appellant, as the testimony given by Ballard on direct examination was to the effect that he explained the restrictions to appellant and read to him the contract for purchase of the lot by him, which contained such restrictions, and told him that, if the neighbors did not object to his temporarily occupying his garage as a residence, he (Ballard) would not object to such use, but that he had no authority to waive the restrictions for the company; that, if no one else objected, he (Ballard) had no personal objection. This testimony was given without objection by appellant or any one else. Its tendency, was to show that Ballard had informed appellant that all purchasers of parts of‘the subdivision had an interest in the restrictions.
We think that as appellant had permitted the introduction of such testimony without objection, which tended to show that such restrictions were intended for all purchasers of parts of the subdivision, he .is in no position to complain of the testimony given by Ballard on cross-examination.
With this admission and statement, the motion is refused.
Refused.