Court Opinion

ID: 9864642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 14:32:32.720156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:32.428965
License: Public Domain

*8THE COURT.
In his petition for a rehearing, appellant, among other points therein made, declares that, in reaching our conclusion as announced in the original opinion, we considered the testimony of Nelligan as to the price at which corn could be sold in Santa Rosa. In reply, we take occasion to say that we based our decision solely upon the proposition that the record contained sufficient evidence to support the verdict in all vital particulars growing out of the issues made and tried, and that, although we referred in our opinion to the testimony relative to the price at which corn could be sold in Santa Rosa, we attached no significance thereto so far as the verdict was concerned. That testimony ’was by the court taken from the jury in an instruction in which they were told in explicit terms not to regard or consider it in reaching their verdict, and the presumption is that they obeyed the instruction and disregarded the testimony.
As to the remaining grounds upon which a rehearing is asked, we are satisfied with our original opinion, and a rehearing is, therefore, denied.
A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on September 27, 1918.