Court Opinion

ID: 9829109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:00:06.565827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:57.439602
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The correctness of our statement of the allegations has been challenged in two particulars, the first of .which is that there is no allegation to the effect that “this strip is used by appellees exclusively as an alleyway.” In paragraph 4 the strip is described, and then follows the statement, “which said strip of land is used by defendants exclusively as an alleyway.” We undertook to state fairly, but briefly, the substance of the petition, and believe we succeeded. However, we do not wish to be understood as attaching any particular importance to said allegation, for we believe the result would have been the same if the word “exclusively” had been omitted. The other objection is that there is no allegation to the effect that—
“Said acts of appellees thus resulted in the appropriation by them of an 8-inch strip belonging to appellant, to their use and benefit as a part of said alleyway.”
In paragraph 9 it is alleged that defendants induced the contractor to change the location of the wall, “thereby leaving a strip of plaintiff’s land 8 inches wide by 70 feet long north of his building and in said alleyway.” Paragraph 18 contains the following allegation:
“That the result of defendant’s unauthorized action in causing his building to be shifted as set out in paragraph 9 hereof was to reduce the width of said footway from 3 feet to 2 feet 4 inches, and to appropriate the strip of plaintiff’s lands 8 inches wide by 70 feet in length, along his north line, to the use of said alleyway and thereby to the use and benefit of themselves, the defendants.”
We believe these portions of the petition sustain the statements in the opinion. If not, this opinion will serve as a correction of the original with regard to the portions criticized.
We find no reason for changing our views with reference to the questions of law involved, and deem it unnecessary to write further with regard thereto.
Appellees’ motion for rehearing is overruled.