Court Opinion

ID: 9832566
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:00:24.244636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:48.141172
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing calls attention to an erroneous statement in our opinion to the effect that, after appellant had listed his land with appellee, he went to Hillsboro to see John Ferguson for the purpose of negotiating a trade with Ferguson, and that he and Ferguson there, after some negotiations, failed to trade, but that on that occasion Ferguson promised to try to help find a purchaser for the farm, saying he would make no charges except for his time and gasoline to operate his automobile. Further dose examination of the evidence reveals that the discussion of trade between McElroy and Ferguson took place at Milford, where McElroy lived at the time, and not at Hillsboro. McElroy seems to have gone to Hillsboro and talked with Ferguson after Dobbs had showed the place to the latter. But the discrepancy pointed out does not *677affect tlie fact that McElroy had already called Ferguson’s attention to the farm before Dobbs mentioned it to Ferguson, so that Ferguson recognized it when he went with Dobbs to see it. Acceding to the correction pointed out by appellee’s able counsel, the fact remains that the evidence, as a whole, presented on the trial in appellant’s behalf, required the giving of the special charge, the refusing to give which appellant’s third assignment of error complains about, especially since the general charge did not present the issue.
Other parts of the motion for rehearing have been examined and considered, and the motion is overruled.