Court Opinion

ID: 9828162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:10:18.4761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:45.003128
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The appellants herein perfected the former appeal to this court, and sought and obtained a reversal of the judgment on the ground that Bonnet was not permitted to testify to all the conversation with the testatrix at the time he prepared the will and deeds. 123 S. W. 710. The evidence was held to be admissible in order to ascertain the intention of the testatrix in regard to the property. Now, when the evidence tends to show a different intention from the one contended for by appellants, they contend that appellees should not be allowed the benefit of the evidence because they had not set up a trust in the land. The evidence was intended to meet the plea of es-toppel filed by appellants, and was proper under the allegations of appellees in their supplemental petition. Barclay v. Stuart, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 685, 23 S. W. 799. If the evidence was admissible when it assisted appellants, it was admissible when it aided appellees.
[11] The evidence of Bonnet was not objected to in the lower court, but, on the other hand, appellants had compelled its admission. They cannot be heard now to complain because it was fatal to them.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.