Court Opinion

ID: 9830779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:28:10.965447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:00.062089
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Plaintiff in error, calling attention to the fact that the answer of defendant in error Chenault consisted only of a general denial and a plea of not guilty, and contained no suggestion that he had in good faith made improvements on the land, insists that this court, when it reversed the judgment of the court below, should have rendered judgment in her favor against said Chenault for the land -in controversy.. We agree this should have been done, and therefore the judgment of this court of February 7, 1924, will be so reformed as to adjudge a recovery by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error Chenault of the land in controversy, and as to remand the cause to the court below with instructions to award plaintiff in error a recovery of that land as against defendants in error John Mace and Ernestine Mace, after determining their rights with reference to their claim for improvements.