Court Opinion

ID: 9831738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:19:34.677125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:37.484738
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We have carefully considered the able and exhaustive motion for rehearing presented by counsel for appellant. The motion presents nothing that was not considered by us in arriving at the conclusions expressed in our main opinion.
' The complaint that this court erred in holding that the rule'of stare decisis should not be applied in this case need not be discussed, because the court made no such holding, and the statement in the opinion that the rule was not controlling in this case was expressly stated as the opinion of the writer only, and because, if the court had so held, the decision was not based on that conclusion. On this question the writer adheres to the conclusion expressed in the original opinion, but the question being immaterial to. the decision of the case, we will not becloud the material questions involved in the appeal by a discussion of.this issue.
The criticism in the motion of the statement in our opinion that there was a conflict in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of this state upon the question of whether .the grant to Victor Blanco was void under the colonization laws of Mexico at the time the ‘ grant was extended, and the statement of the legislative history of the statute under which appellant’s suit was brought, are without merit. The opinions referred to in our opinion conclusively establish the conflict, and the fact that the Supreme Coui-t of the United States in a subsequent decision to the one cited by us, without agreeing to the conclusions of the Supreme Court of this state upon the question, adopted such conclusions, because, ■as stated in the opinion, of the controlling effect of the long-established rule of the United States court that, regardless of its opinion upon any question affecting the title to land, it would follow the opinion of the Supreme Court of the state in which the land was situated, does not in any way affect the accuracy of the statement in our opinion.
The statement in our opinion of the legislative history of the statute under which appellant’s suit is brought is substantially correct, and if inaccurate in any of the particulars pointed out in the motion, such inaccuracies are immaterial in the determination of the question presented by this appeal.
We are entirely satisfied with the soundness of the conclusions expressed in our original opinion, and the motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.