Court Opinion

ID: 9728075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:57:31.704859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:45.656723
License: Public Domain

The following memorandum was filed May, 18, 1965.
Per Curiam
(on motion for rehearing). On our original hearing of this case, we reversed the trial court’s nonsuit of the plaintiff’s case and ordered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants now move for rehearing on two grounds, one, that the agreement between Bump and Haley was in any event ineffective since plat restrictions allowed further division of the platted lots only after approval by the architectural control committee. This point was not effectively raised by the pleadings, nor was it argued in the principal appeal, and in accordance with our well-defined rules applicable on rehearing, we do not consider this point to properly be at issue now.
The second point that the defendants argue is that since nonsuit was granted after the close of the plaintiff’s case, the entry of judgment now would effectively deprive the defendants of their right to be. heard. Ordinarily we would remand for further evidence. However, the record shows that *616bthe defendants have had an opportunity to testify in regard to the only matter we consider relevant on this appeal. Their testimony clearly shows and the facts admitted by them make ■ it apparent that they did have constructive notice of Bump’s possession of the disputed property. No additional testimony that the defendants propose to offer could affect the court’s detérmination on this crucial point. Accordingly, the opinion stands without modification, and the motion for rehearing is denied without costs.