Court Opinion

ID: 9827760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:49:49.927415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:36.050726
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellant criticizes the statement in the original opinion of the scope of the assignment of error, urged. Our statement of the complaint made was based upon the bill of exception, to which we are referred by the assignment, and the bill of exception complains of the exclusion of testimony, as stated in the opinion. However, the propositions presented in the brief do not relate to all of the excluded testimony, and it seems that appellant’s complaint was directed only to the exclusion of testimony of Kapner, as to the price paid by him for property situate in the same block in which plaintiff’s property was situate, before the tracks complained of were constructed. In deference to appellant’s request that we correct our statement of the complaint made by them, we now do so as indicated.
We adhere to the view, however, that the exclusion of the testimony, if conceded to be erroneous, was not such a denial of appellant’s rights as was reasonably calculated to cause the rendition of an improper judgment, and that same probably did not so operate. The motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.