Court Opinion

ID: 9828086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:05:40.751245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:43.390404
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellees have made 11 criticisms of our opinion, which we dispose of as follows:
(1) We overrule appellees’ request to strike from the opinion the undisputed facts as detailed in oral argument. Appellees are correct in saying that the majority of the court did not consider the facts on any issue suggested, since without a brief it was their conclusion that we were without jurisdiction to review the errors suggested by appellants as fundamental. The facts were given in the opinion only as a part of the argument of the ease as made before us, and were given that the positions of the majority and minority of the court, respectively, might be made clear.
• (2) As requested by appellees, we make the following additional- statement, taking the same from appellees’ motion:
“After it had been announced from the bench by Chief Justice Hightower that the motion to dismiss the appeal had been overruled on account of the contention by appellants that the record does show fundamental error, but that the motion to strike the briefs had not been acted on but was being taken with the case, and that,, therefore, the court would hear the contention of counsel for appellants that there was funda'mental error in the case.”
(3) (7) (8) (9) The suggestions in these paragraphs of appellees’ motion have been written into the1 original opinion.
(4) (6) We further find that, on oral argument the appellees advanced the proposition:
“That the court would have to examine the entire statement of facts in order to determine what effect upon the court’s decision of the case the errors assigned by appellants had, if they were, in fact, errors.”
Appellees have misconstrued our opinion when they say, as they do in their motion, that it “indicates that the court has held that appellees would be required to make as full and as all-inclusive a statement in oral argument as they would have been required to make in response to a brief filed within the time and in the manner required by the statutes of the state and the rules of the Supreme Court.”
(5)We find that appellees, in oral argument, advanced the following proposition, which we take from their motion:
“Appellees urged that, before it could be determined what land was conveyed by the said deed to Patrick,„ the description would have tp be .applied to the ground, and that,, regardless of whatever information the court might have by reason of the doctrine of judicial notice as to the location of Big Hill in Jefferson county, it could not take judicial knowledge as to the location of the other surveys of land which the Patrick deed called for and could not therefore say from the face of the deed alone, without knowing where such other surveys were looated, that the said Patrick deed conveyed land which was altogether north of Taylor’s bayou.”
(10) (11) These objections raise only hypothetical questions, which, for that reason, require no further discussion.