Court Opinion

ID: 9827455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:34:08.137125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:31.634802
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant files a motion to dismiss this appeal, or, in the alternative, for a rehearing. The motion to dismiss the appeal is predicated upon the contention that the judgment below fails to dispose of A. F. Drysdale and wife, Effie Drysdale, named as parties defendant in the suit. In our opinion on original hearing no notice was taken of the fact that the judgment failed to specifically discharge these parties, for the reason that it was admitted that the appellant, Tate, was the real owner of the property in question and that the legal title only was held by Drysdale. Furthermore, the plaintiffs’ original petition, upon which the trial proceeded, in its opening paragraph contained this statement:
“Plaintiffs dismissed their cause of action against A. F. Drysdale and wife, Effie Drysdale, without prejudice.”
So that, as stated, we proceeded on the assumption that these parties were in fact no longer parties to the action. But if by any possibility it could be said that we were in error in so ignoring these parties, the error *802has been remedied by a supplemental transcript with a nunc pro tuno order of the trial court which recites that Drysdale and wife in fact had been dismissed by the order of the court, but which order had, by inadvertence, been omitted from the court’s minutes, which were so corrected by a nunc pro tunc order as to show the formal dismissal of the parties.
In that part of the motion before us relating to the subject of a rehearing, it is insisted that we erroneously stated in our original opinion that, while the abstract of title examined by Mr. Trammel was not offered in evidence, “on the submission it was stated by counsel that it was present in court at the time of the trial.” The recollection of the members of this court at this time is not sufficiently definite to insist that the statement embodied in the question is correct, and in view of the unchallenged, positive assertion of counsel for appellant that no such statement was made, the statement will be withdrawn from our opinion as originally written. In other respects, however, we find no sufficient reason to alter our conclusions.
The motions to dismiss the appeal and for a new trial are overruled.