Court Opinion

ID: 9834352
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:30:42.337605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:14.062031
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In the motion for rehearing attention is called to an inadvertent but wholly immaterial error of recitation in the original opinion. It was there stated: ,
“So far as appellants themselves are concerned, however, both the bill of exceptions awarded to and the judgment rendered against them below recite that the judgment was an agreed one as between them and the appellees Bookman and Craig, that portion of the judgment being as follows.”
This sentence should have read:
“So far as appellants themselves are concerned, however, both the bill of exceptions awarded to them and the statement of facts prepared and signed by the court, which applied only to the issues between themselves and the appellees, recite that the judgment was an agreed one as between them and the appellees Bookman and Craig, that portion of the statement of facts reading as follows,” etc.
In acknowledging the opportunity to make the correction, it may be added that the *300matter then copied from the record in the former opinion was correct in every particular, being merely' attributed to the judgment, instead of the statement of facts.
[6] It is quite evident from the portions of the statement of facts there quoted, as appellants now contend, that some of the defendants owning among themselves 55 acres of the land were, under the judgment rendered, entitled to have their lands free through releases thereof upon payment of costs; but this matter was neither originally assigned as constituting error, nor does the bulky and somewhat incoherent record presented to this court disclose just who these parties were, or what particular tracts of land they severally owned. Manifestly under these conditions, this court is in no position either to declare the entire judgment void, or even to so reform it as to decree releases to those entitled thereto, which might be done, were the necessary facts before us.
After a most careful consideration of every contention upon rehearing, presented as they are under a criticism of the action of both this and the trial court lacking somewhat in that high degree of helpful courtesy usually -accorded the courts by the able counsel for appellants, we conclude that our former disposition of the appeal was correct, and must be adhered to. The motion is therefore overruled.
Overruled.