Court Opinion

ID: 9830583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:17:58.159801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:24.244371
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In their motion for rehearing appeilees earnestly insist we erred in our ruling upon the insufficiency of the verdict to support the judgment of foreclosure.
The cases cited in the motion have been carefully considered. Some of them do not involve the question her.e at issue, and for such reason are not in x>oint; some are discussed, and their distinguishing features pointed out, in the Ablowich Case, 95 Tex. 429, 67 S. W. 79, 881; others have the distinguishing feature present in Railway Co. v. Henderson, 86 Tex. 307, 24 S. W. 381. Under the authorities cited in the main opinion, we see no occasion to change our ruling.
Appellant has also filed a motion for rehearing, and insists that his third assignment should have been sustained also. This assignment presents no error, for the reason stated in Sowell v. Federal Reserve Bank, 268 U. S. 449, 45 S. Ct. 528, 69 L. Ed. 1041.
Both motions are overruled.