Court Opinion

ID: 9832032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:33:48.840807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:41.320458
License: Public Domain

On Motion for. Rehearing.
[51 We are unable to concur in appellee’s contention to the effect that the testimony sustains the verdict and judgment rendered against appellant Jack Underwood. Upon that question we adhere to our former opinion. However, we agree with the contention that, as the plaintiff’s suit is founded upon a tort, this court can properly grant ap-pellee’s request to reverse and render the case in favor of appellant Jack Underwood, and affirm it as to the other appellants, if the verdict and judgment against them are sustained by the testimony.
We stated, in our former opinion that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict against appellants Smith and Whitley, but refrained from expressing any opinion upon that subject in reference to appellant Sid Underwood. A. reconsideration of the testimony has caused us to reach the conclusion that the same ruling should be made as to Sid Underwood. Not only was there more testimony against him as disclosed by his own conduct than there wrs against Jack Underwood; but it Would seem that, as appellant Smith was his agent for the sale of the sheep, he should be held legally responsible for the misrepresentations made by Smith to the plaintiff Winkel.
For the reasons stated, the rehearing is granted, and the judgment of the trial court reversed and here rendered in, favor of appellant Jack Underwood, and affirmed as against all the other appellants.
Motion granted in part.