Court Opinion

ID: 9831197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:54:16.580994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:32.371559
License: Public Domain

On Motion to Certify and for Rehearing.
Appellee has asked us to certify to the Supreme Court the issues involved in the construction of their deed. We recognize the importance to appellees, as well as to the general jurisprudence of this state, of a correct construction of the character of deed involved in this appeal. If we were able to draw any distinction in principle between the deed in this case and in Lewis v. Ben-nette (see, also, Adams v. Fidelity Lumber Company, 201 S. W. 1034), we would certify this question to the Supreme Court in order that we might have its construction of the deed before entering our .final judgment. But, as said in our original opinion, it seems to us these two deeds have an identical legal effect. We do not believe a question should be certified to the Supreme Court when a Court of Civil Appeals is unable to draw any distinction in principle between the case at bar and the authorities which have met with the approval of our Supreme Court. The motion to certify is therefore denied.
At the request of appellant, we find that the deeds upon which we based our conclusions as to the character of title of the respective parties connecting appellant with the common source were introduced by ap-pellee only for the purpose of showing com-, mon source. We have again reviewed, with the greatest care, appellees’ construction of their deeds and the many authorities cited in support of their propositions. But believing that this case is ruled by Lewis v. Bennette, and without undertaking to go into the facts of this case beyond the propositions announced in Lewis v. Bennette, appellees’ motion for rehearing is overruled. And in this connection, we would-say that, as we understand appellees’ position in this case, the proposition now advanced, as against our construction of the deeds, is the proposition upon which Judge Davis based his dissenting opinion in Lewis v. Bennette.