Court Opinion

ID: 9832360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:51:24.658499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:46.051809
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees have called our attention to the fact that, in reforming and affirming the judgment of the district court, we did not aij-low interest on the judgment as reformed at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from the date of. the judgment in the district court. This was an oversight, and the judgment here rendered is corrected so as to provide for interest on the amount at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from November 15, 1924, the date of the judgment of the district court. Article 5072, R. S. 1925; Baum v. Daniels, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 273, 118 S. W. 754. Appellees’ motion in all other respects is overruled.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.