Court Opinion

ID: 9830785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:29:11.740657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:26.859568
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In the opinion rendered in this case, it is stated that in 1909 a judgment was rendered for the defendants in a suit brought by Max Schütz in which case the petition alleged substantially the same facts as here present. Appellants move for correction of this statement in that in the former case brought *245by Max Schütz alone no mention -was made of Z. T. White or any agreement to purchase the property by him, nor is there any mention made of any agreement relating to Mrs. Schütz or by which she acquired any rights in the premises, but said petition simply alleges a loan of the purchase- money to Max Schütz by Mrs. Harris, she to hold the title to the land as her security for the repayment to her of the money by Max Schütz.
We do not find any great difference between what appellants claim are the true facts and the facts which we stated in our original opinion, nor do we see that such change would make any difference in the result of the case; but, as the facts which we are moved to find are borne out by the record, we make these additional findings of fact, at the request of appellants.
The motion for rehearing, however, is overruled.