Court Opinion

ID: 9682007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:03:23.145828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:36.982078
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellants’ motion for rehearing calls our attention to an inaccurate statement in the second paragraph of our opinion in which we included the deed of May 22, 1948 with the other deeds in controversy as being canceled by the judgment of the court below. A careful .examination of the judgment as entered discloses this to be *643an error' since only the deeds of June 3 and August 2, 1948 were canceled by the judgment. However, this' does not alter^ the conclusions reached by us in the original opinion'. It is undisputed in the record' that subsequent to the May 22, 1948 deed, appellee and his wife conveyed the same' property to a trustee, who in turn conveyed' it to appellee and he, on June 3,. conveyed a slightly different interest in the mineral rights to his wife and that being the only then effective deed under which she held and the judgment having canceled that deed, the appellants took nothing as heirs of their deceased mother because of the deed of May 22, 1948. With this corrected recitation of the judgment, the motion for rehearing is overruled.