Court Opinion

ID: 9730282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:07:02.377652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:05.404521
License: Public Domain

Motion for Reargument.
Per Curiam.
After the filing of our opinion in this case, the respondent Leonardo Francescone, Jr. with permission of the court presented a motion for leave to reargue. He contends therein that this court either overlooked or misconceived the effect of certain evidence contained in the record, to wit, a warranty deed dated June 1, 1950 wherein the parents of the complainant conveyed to him by metes and bounds the house lot located on Mantón avenue, said deed being in evidence as Complainant’s Exhibit 2.
It is our opinion, upon a consideration of the contention of the respondent and of the evidence in the record, that an issue of sufficient importance has been raised to warrant further argument. Such reargument shall be confined to the question of what effect, if any, the conveyance of June 1, 1950 has upon the competence of the evidence adduced *376to establish the adverse possession by complainant’s parents prior to that date.
MAY 27, 1964.
As thus limited, the motion of the respondent for leave to reargue is granted.