Court Opinion

ID: 9828710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:38:27.350315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:52.079651
License: Public Domain

On Motions for Rehearing.
All appellants have filed motions for rehearing in this case, and each complain of matters stated in both opinions filed, the one on February 3, 1934, and on March 19, 1937. By this, our attention is called to the fact that in the latter opinion we did not state that we had withdrawn the original opinion. In the conclusions expressed on March 19, 1937, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed as it was in the first opinion, but we have stated additional-grounds, based upon the record, to those expressed in the first opinion, and we therefore withdraw the opinion rendered on February 3, 1934, and substitute in lieu thereof the one of March 19, 1937.
The Texas Power & Light Company especially challenges the statement made by us in the last-mentioned opinion, which reads: “It is apparent from the evidence referred to above that each of the appellants had full knowledge that appellee did not need and would not have purchased the articles from the respective appellants unless they would, when combined in the manner discussed between them, constitute an efficient plant for the manufacture of ice cream.”
As a reason for the assignment, that appellant says there is no evidence referred to by us and there is no evidence in the record that the Texas Power & Light Company knew, or was advised, prior to the time of the execution of the written contract by it, what equipment was to be purchased from the Southwestern Drug Corporation.
We think the statement in the opinion is amply supported by the testimony of ap-pellee, as shown on page 10 of the statement of facts, wherein he testified:
“Mr. Lewis (representative of the Texas Power & Light Company) was told of my plan of opening up an ice cream plant in Waco, and.of the equipment I would have to have to operate this freezer and harden*887ing cabinet, and the other items that make up the entire equipment, and he was told by Mr. Griffin (of the Southwestern Drug Corporation) at the time, the type of compressor that was to be used, that they recommended for their equipment.”
We have carefully reviewed these several motions,' but still believe we properly disposed of the appeal, and we therefore overrule all motions for rehearing.