Court Opinion

ID: 9829566
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:26:18.116464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:22:07.215825
License: Public Domain

On Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing.
In disposing of the appeal this court did not determine, as appellee seems to think it did, that appellant was not liable to it for the debt evidenced by the note for $179. What this court did determine, and all it determined, was that it did not appear from the record that appellant had contracted in writing to pay in Navarro county Walthall’s indebtedness to appellee if Walthall himself did not pay same; and hence that it did not appear that appellee was entitled to maintain its suit against appellant in that county, notwithstanding appellant resided in Freestone county. Further consideration of the record in connection with the motion has not convinced us that the conclusion reached was erroneous, but, on the contrary, has rather strengthened confidence felt in its correctness.
The motion is overruled.