Court Opinion

ID: 9833070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:25:51.851633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:59.290224
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant urges the proposition, which is correct in the abstract, that, appellees having alleged that the false representations were made by appellant, and the proof showing that the representations as alleged were not made by appellant, but by an agent acting for appellant in making the sale of the property to appellees, there was a material variance. This proposition embraces a well-recognized rule of law. Touchstone et al. v. Staggs et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 39 S. W. 189; Peyton et al. v. Cook (Tex. Civ. App.) 32 S. W. 781; Lewis v. Hatton, 86 Tex. 533, 26 S. W. 50; Stevenson v. Cauble, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 75, 118 S. W. 811. However, this ground of the motion cannot be considered, by reason óf the fact that the record does not contain an assignment of error presenting this question.
We do not think the other grounds are well taken, ,and, adhering to the disposition made of this appeal, appellant’s motion is overruled.
Overruled.