Court Opinion

ID: 9831970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:30:55.429141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:40.335172
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant complains of the statement in the opinion wherein we referred to the fact that appellant conceded the existence of smallpox in certain localities. We doubt very much whether any one can read certain parts of the petition and appellees’ statement of the same facts in the answer, and the statements, propositions and replies in appellant’s brief to that effect, and reach any other conclusion. Since appellant protests so vigorously, we “let it go at that,” and say that such admission, contention, or denial has nothing to do with the result of this case, and for that reason we may eliminate the denied concession.
It is contended we did not decide the law as presented by appellant’s second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth assignments of error, as we are required to do under article 1639, R. S. It is apparent to every one, when it is understood, this case was dismissed on a general demurrer, we had to decide every legal question properly pleaded.
Only one assignment was urged, and that attacked the ruling of the court in dismissing the case, and under that appellant urged seven separate propositions, embraced in from 3 to 24 pages, inclusive, of his brief. We discussed this assignment and every proposition thereunder. We devoted 7 pages unnecessarily in stating her pleading and contention, thereby hoping to satisfy appellant’s counsel that the case was fully stated, and his position considered and discussed.
Now he complains that we did not make a separate discussion in respect to the remaining assignments. These were directed entirely at defendants’ pleading, which could only become material in ease we reversed *274the ease. They could in no way affect the decision of this case. Worcester v. Railway, 91 S. W. 339; El Campo Ice, Light & Water Co. v. Texas Machinery & Supply Co., 147 S. W. 338.
Appellant has doubtless overlooked the statement in the last paragraph of the opinion. We considered each one of those assignments. They were each without merit, and to sustain them would have been to reverse the case, and. not required to be discussed unless the case had been reversed. The insistence for us to write on each, when the opinion itself does so in general terms, would be “requiring us to do a useless thing,” which the law never imposes.
There is nothing new presented in this motion, and it is without merit, and the same is overruled.