Court Opinion

ID: 9827889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:54:50.595929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:38.524348
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It is insisted that the statement in the opinion that it appeared from the testimony that appellant had issued to both Dr. Webb and Dr. Lott, as surgeons in charge of thO' *1157hospital where appellee was treated for the injury he sustained, and that they had accepted and used, passes entitling them to free transportation over appellant’s line of railway, is erroneous. It is, so far as it applies to Dr. Webb. On a re:examination of the i-ecord we fail to find testimony showing he had accepted and used such a pass. That the statement is erroneous as to Dr. Webb is immaterial, however, from a legal standpoint, in view of the fact that the representations made by him to appellee were also made by Dr. Lott, who had accepted and used such a pass. The motion does not, we think, present a reason why the judgment rendered by this court should be set aside. Therefore the motion is overruled.