Court Opinion

ID: 9827628
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:43:03.296323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:33.943798
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It is insisted that the statement in the opinion that the judgment perpetuating the injunction was rendered without other evidence of the truth of the allegations in the petition than that furnished by the affidavit thereto is incorrect. In support of the contention, it is asserted that “the record shows that the appellee by one J. M. McKenzie proved that William Linden was not in town at the time the judgment was rendered against him, and did not know that said judgment had been rendered against him in justice’s court until the time had expired in which' to sue out a writ of certiorari.” Conceding that such proof, had it been made, would have tended to establish the truth of any of the material allegations in the petition, the fact remains that the witness McKenzie did not so testify. According to the allegations in appellee’s petition, the judgment in the justice court was rendered January 25, 1910. It does not appear from the record that the witness McKenzie knew, or pretended to know, anything about where ap-pellee was on that day. His testimony was that appellee “was out of ’town,” quoting from the record, “about three weeks, probably not so long, probably longer. He was out nearly the entire month of March, and was out probably a good deal of the time in February. 1-Ie was out of town in April off and on for a week at a time once that I know of, probably twice, which would make it *1120two weeks.” It Is further asserted that “the record shows that the entire proceedings in justice court were admitted in evidence hy both parties without objection.” As a matter of fact the record does not so show. The only part of those proceedings appearing in the statement of facts (Bowden v. Davis, 71 S. W. 47) is a copy of the citation to appellant and appellee issued in Craig’s suit against them, and a copy of the officer’s return thereon.
The record is as it was stated to be in the opinion. Therefore the motion is overruled.