Court Opinion

ID: 9828360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:19:25.685969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:47.527543
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee has filed a very able motion for rehearing. However, it cites only one case not cited in his original brief, this being Arnold v. Leonard (Tex. Sup.) 273 S. W. page 799, insisting that this case overrules the opinion of the court in the case of Chapman v. Pettus (Tex Civ. App.) 269 S. W. page 268. We regret that we cannot agree with appellee, and we adhere to our original opinion in holding that the case of Chapman v. Pettus, supra, governs the law in this case.
Appellee virtually admits that in order to reverse our opinion it will be necessary for this court to hold unconstitutional article 1123 of Revised Statutes as amended in 1921.
After giving careful consideration to all propositions raised in appellee’s motion for new trial and all cases cited therein, we conclude that we were correct in our original opinion, and therefore motion for rehearing is overruled.