Court Opinion

ID: 9827849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:53:25.024997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:37.828805
License: Public Domain

On Behearing.
In appellant’s motion for rehearing it is suggested that the court below entered judgment for the sum of $240.70, which, under the undisputed facts in the case, should have been for $231. We therefore reform the judgment, as affirmed in our original opinion, and now here render judgment for the sum of $231. [12] It is also suggested that the costs in this appeal should be charged to the appellee. We do not agree with the appellant in this contention, because it appears that the error in the judgment, had the same been called to the attention of the trial court, could have been corrected without the necessity of this appeal, and our attention having been called to the error for the first time upon the motion for rehearing, we therefore tax the costs of the appeal against the appellant. Henry v. Benoit, 70 S. W. 359; Gunn v. Miller, 26 S. W. 278; Helm v. Weaver, 69 Tex. 143, 6 S. W. 420; White v. Manning, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 298, 102 S. W. 1160; Cummings & Co. v. Masterson, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 549, 93 S. W. 500; Yoe v. Milam County Co-operative Cotton Mercantile Alliance, 32 S. W. 162; Dodge v. Bichardson, 70 Tex. 209, 8 S. W. 30.
The other matters complained of in the motion for rehearing are overruled.