Court Opinion

ID: 9828088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:05:47.557945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:43.427407
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It has been made to appear that we were inaccurate in stating in our original opinion that:
“The transfer from Huff and others to My-tinger and Walker does not appear in the record, nor do the transfers from Mytinger and Walker to the parties to this suit and other owners of the reconstructed block, nor does the evidence show that tlie restrictions originally provided for by Huff and others were contained in any of these intermediate deeds.”
By reference to thé statement of facts, however, we find that the deed from Huff and others to Mytinger and Walker does appear therein, and that therein Mytinger and Walker were restricted as plaintiff alleged. The inaccuracy was probably brought about by the facts that the brief of appellant in its statement of the evidence faiied to refer to the deed from I-Iuff and others to Mytinger and Walker. But, however the inaccuracy was brought about, we regard it as wholly immaterial to the conclusion reached, inasmuch as it is undisputed that the deeds from Mytinger and Walker to the parties to this suit and other owners of the reconstructed lots did not contain the restrictions which appellants sought to enforce.
In all other respects the motion for l'ehear-ing is overruled.