Court Opinion

ID: 9834404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:33:28.63826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:14.635512
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[4] After a careful review of appellant’s motion for rehearing, we are constrained to believe that it is without merit. It is true that in stating the averments of appellees’ replication we were mistaken in saying that they alleged that the note was only placed in the hands of an attorney to procure a sale under the deed of trust. We are glad to make this acknowledgment, in order to keep the record straight. We do not think that appellant was entitled to attorney’s fees, because the jury.found, in response to the fifth issue, that the note was placed in the hands of an attorney for foreclosure, and failed to find that it was placed in his hands for collection. This finding is supported by sufficient and satisfactory evidence.
Believing that the motion is not well taken, the same is in all things overruled.
Overruled.