Court Opinion

ID: 9832354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:50:56.663214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:45.949151
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellants in their motion for rehearing call our attention to some errors appearing in the opinion, some of which we think are of minor importance and which we have corrected by slight changes in the language of the opinion, a copy of which as amended we send to the attorneys of both sides, and about which we do not think to write further.
It is-not made to appear that this suit is brought by the County Attorney of XJpshur County, but the point is made that “the pleadings in tthe case are signed by E. S. Pritchard as attorney of record for the State of Texas,” who signs the petition as “attorney for plaintiff,” and is verified by attorney Pritchard. The judgment recites that “came the plaintiff, State of Texas, by its attorney and announced ready for trial,” and came the defendants, etc. Article 7326 of the R.C.S. provides that “The county attorney, or the attorney employed by the commissioners court, shall sign such petition as attorney for the plaintiff.” Pritchard does not sign the petition as “the attorney employed by the Commissioners’ Court,” but a failure to so sign we do not regard as jurisdictional.
We think that under the condition of the record, no question as to Pritchard’s employment by the Commissioners’ Court having been raised by pleading or otherwise, we can assume that all the conditions of employment of Pritchard were complied with, and that Pritchard was employed by the Commissioners’ Court to prosecute the suit in behalf of the State.
There is some confusion in the record as to the interests severally owned by appellants in the tracts of land involved. We said in the opinion, “defendants jointly owned the surface estate in the lands and one-eighth mineral interest.” Appellants in their motion say the statement is error, and further say: “Birdie V. Milliron owned an undivided one-half interest in the surface and royalty in the ‘Homestead’ 200 acres, the middle 50 acres of the Evans survey, and of the 44.14 acres of the Pineda, but no interest in the other 50 acres and the 100 acres in the Evans survey,” and direct us to several pages of the record as establishing their statement. We accept appellants’ statement as to the individual interests of appellants, and the opinion is reformed to conform thereto.
The above correction as to the several interests of appellants in the lands in the opinion being made, other statements in the opinion referring to the interests of appellants are corrected to conform thereto.
*482Appellee, the State, not having by pleading or proof sustained its right to recover on behalf of Road District No. 2, the judgment in this respect is error. It is, therefore, ordered-that the judgment insofar as the recovery is for and on behalf of Road District No. 2, is reversed and here rendered in favor of appellants.
Other than some minor corrections in the language of the opinion and noted thereon, and corrections noted here in considering the motion for rehearing, the motion is overruled.
Motion granted in part and in part overruled. •