Court Opinion

ID: 9834150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:20:16.572566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:11.997484
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
This case was affirmed upon the ground that the testimony was insufficient to identify the land claimed by the appellants with that described in their petition. A more careful examination of the evidence has led to a contrary conclusion. Laura Clinton, the wife of Bob Hines, testified that the land her husband bought from Marshall is the same place that is here in litigation. It does not appear that there was any serious question about the identity of the land involved in the suit. The principal issue in the controversy was that relating to the conveyance of Marshall to Hines. We are of the opinion that the testimony tending to show that Marshall did convey the lands to Hines was such as required the issue to be submitted to the jury. If the witnesses who testified upon that point *117-for the appellants told the truth, the jury had a right to conclude that Marshall had -conveyed to Hines and that the deed had been lost.
The judgment heretofore rendered affirming the case will be set aside, and the judgment of the trial court reversed, and the -cause remanded for another trial.