Court Opinion

ID: 9832639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:04:39.386457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:49.843250
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees contend that the nunc pro tunc order was only admitted in evidence for the purpose of showing the date of its passage, and that it cannot be given any probative value as against them because entered after this suit was filed and without notice to them. The statement of facts shows the introduction of this order by appellees, and we find no statement that it was admitted only for the purpose of showing the date of its entry. Appellees are in error in saying it was not offered in evidence by appellants, for the statement of facts contains the following statement just before the conclusion of Hartman’s testimony: “The order nunc pro tunc was here admitted.” No objection appears to have been -made to its admission, but even without such order, we think the evidente establishes the fact that the court adopted the Stein field notes as those of district No. 31. The fact that they were formally adopted as the field notes of said district was probably sufficiently shown by their appearance upon the minutes, which we must presume were read over and found correct and signed as required by law. But if anything more is needed than such entry, Hartman’s testimony establishes the fact that Stein’s report was adopted by the court; in other words that the field notes appear upon the minutes pursuant to their formal adoption by the court A This is equivalent to saying that the court passed an order adopting the field notes as the boundaries of district No. 31. Appellees contend that the first order entered by the court was one to have a survey made, and not to redistrict, and that such order cannot be varied or contradicted by Hartman's testimony to the effect that he made the motion, and that it was really a motion to *936enlarge the district and have it surveyed. They also contend that the motion as described by Hartman was too indefinite to base an election upon. The first order is not important in view of the fact that after the survey was made the court adopted the field notes as those of district No. 31. Such act established the district according to the field notes, regardless of all previous orders, and regardless of whether other districts were properly described or not.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.