Court Opinion

ID: 9829576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:27:02.566428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:03.186826
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[9] The appellee insists in this motion for a rehearing that Morris and Crow show no legal right to the land in controversy,’ because the evidence shows that their deed was to take effect only in the event that Kelly succeeded in establishing the validity of his title through the proceedings against Cayee. We may concede that this is correct as a legal proposition, but the record does not support that construction of the evidence. Morris testified that no such understanding as that relied on existed. Even if there was evidence to the contrary, it merely presented a case of conflict in which the court below manifestly accepted the testimony of Morris as true, for the judgment in favor of Morris and Crow for any part of the land necessarily involved a finding that their deed was not subject to those conditions. If the deed upon which Morris and Crow relied was incumbered with the conditions and agreements asserted by the appellee, they were not entitled to any portion of the land. A finding in their favor by the trial court for an undivided one-half interest is necessarily a finding against the appellee as to the existence of all or any of the facts upon which he now bases his argument. We not only think the facts disclosed by the record warranted that conclusion, but that it is sustained by the great preponderance of the evidence adduced upon the trial.
The motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.