Court Opinion

ID: 9830860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:34:24.026077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:27.817034
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Both parties have filed motions for rehearing. Appellee’s motion refers to no new authorities not considered by us on the original hearing, and no argument not contained in the brief. We have given the questions of law raised in this motion careful consideration, but adhere to our original opinion.
There are two grounds in appellant’s motion for rehearing in which it is claimed we erred in our original holding. The first ground is stated in the motion as follows:
“The court erred in holding that the third proposition in appellant’s brief is ‘not in 'fact a proposition of law, but is argumentative, assumption, and conclusion.’ ”
We did not use the language thus attributed to us.
The statement in the motion following this first ground is as follows:
“Following is a copy of appellant’s third proposition: ‘The court erred in. refusing to instruct the jury to return a verdict in favor of this appellant on the issue of damages resulting from nuisance complained of as requested by this appellant. Fourth ground for new trial, p. 45, Tr.’ Page 3, appellant’s brief.”
The third proposition as contained in the brief which we considered is not at all the proposition quoted in this motion. The third proposition contained in the brief and which we held to be insufficient, is as follows:
“Appellant challenges the action of the trial court in refusing to instruct the jury to return a verdict in its favor on the issue of damages resulting from the nuisance complained of.
“The uncontroverted evidence shows that ap-pellee had and owned only an easement giving him the right to use the water impounded on the land for the operation of his' cotton gin so long as, and no longer than, he should continue to operate his gin; that his life expectancy is 21.63 years. The only evidence introduced to show damages resulting from the nuisance complained was the difference in the value of the land prior and subsequent to the creation of the nuisance. Fourth ground for new trial, Tr. p. 45, fourth assignment of error.”
The second ground for rehearing contained in the motion reads:
“The court erred in holding that there is no correlated statement from the record under the third proposition.”
We agree that the brief does contain a sufficient státement from the record under the third proposition, and our opinion did not hold that such statement was insufficient. The fault with the third .proposition was not that it was not followed by a written statement, but that the so-called proposition itself was not a proposition of law.
Both motions for rehearing are overruled.