Court Opinion

ID: 9825467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:05:14.131295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:51.441064
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
It is insisted that the court was in error in its statement of facts, in that it was stated:
“It is argued in brief that the testimony of this witness [Wood] shows that the plaintiff was paid $200 of the proceeds of the Everage cotton.”
This last is not borne out by the record. Wood’s testimony on this point is that he paid the bank $200 in 1923 for Everage. The record on this point shows that Wood was asked this question:
“And is it not true that you sold Everage’s share of the cotton and paid the proceeds to W. P. McSwain & Bro. for this fertilizer? Was this not done on the instruction of W. P. McSwain, the president of the First National Bank of Brantley?”
The answer to this was :
“Except during the year 1923 I paid to the First National Bank $200 that Everage owed this bank.”
This seems to us to sustain the statement made in the original opinion. It does appear from the record that Horn made some allusion ’to a ledger sheet which showed a payment of $200 “along in 1924.” No such ledger sheet appears in evidence, unless reference is made to the list of credits appearing in the record in connection with the Ever-age mortgage. If the witness is referring to these credits, then it appears - that the credit was entered 10/15/23, which also sustains the statement of the court and corroborates Wood’s statement.
The application is overruled.