Court Opinion

ID: 9883702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:12:05.247484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:29.357412
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DICE, Judge.
In his motion for rehearing, appellant insists that we were in error in holding that the issue of his execution of the bond in question was not raised by a plea of non est factum.
Appellant insists that his verified amended answer, in which he challenged the validity of the bond together with his sworn testimony given on the hearing of the verified motion for new *158trial denying execution of the same, was tantamount to a plea of non est factum.
While in his amended answer appellant alleged that the bond was invalid for various reasons, he did not, as pointed out in our original opinion, in any manner, deny execution of the bond. The answer urging invalidity of the bond for the various reasons assigned did not constitute a plea of non est factum. 8 Tex. Jur. Supp. 189-190, par. 128; Sethman v. Liberty National Bank of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 55 S.W. 2d 644 (Civ. App.) writ dismissed. Under the record, we remain convinced that the issue of appellant’s execution of the bond was not raised by a proper plea of non est factum and that the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial on such ground. We are unable to agree with appellant that the state, by failing to object to his testimony given on the hearing of the motion for new trial denying execution of the bond, waived the requirements of a plea of non est factum in the cause.
Other grounds urged by appellant in his motion for rehearing were not presented in his brief on file herein upon the original hearing and are overruled. 4 Tex. Jur. 2d 234, par. 740; Aycock v. Travis County, 255 S.W. 2d 910 (Civ. App.) writ refused.
The motion is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.