Court Opinion

ID: 9833752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:59:42.396475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:06.432961
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In his motion for a rehearing appellant insists that the testimony of Mrs. Sullivan as-to how her father regarded the deed from. him to Coleman was admissible for the purpose of showing that her father claimed the-land adversely. Conceding that proposition to be correct, we are still of the opinion that the testimony, if admitted, would not have caused the jury to render a different verdict upon that issue. Mrs. Sullivan’s statements, if admitted, would have been merely cumulative of what a number of other witnesses of apparent equal credibility had detailed more-specifically. Snow v. Starr, 75 Tex. 411, 12 S. W. 674; Payne v. Benham, 16 Tex. 364; Galveston, etc., R. R. Co. v. Matula, 79 Tex. 577, 15 S. W. 573.
The motion for a rehearing is overruled.