Court Opinion

ID: 9666477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:17:10.803559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:29.281895
License: Public Domain

*325On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees have filed a lengthy and forceful motion for rehearing, and urge that E. H. Henderson admitted that he told Mrs. Grogan that his children owned interest in the 213-acre tract of land, and refer the Court to a question and answer on pages 57 and 58 of the Statement of Facts; and also contend that Mrs. Grogan testified that she knew that the children owned a 1/2 interest in the 213 acres and refer to a question and answer of Mrs. Grogan on page 99 of the Statement of Facts. On examination of the testimony referred to, it shows that Mr. Henderson was testifying about the community property of himself and his deceased wife, and in the testimony of Mrs. Grogan, she was testifying about the 50-acre tract which appellees admit was the separate property of E. H. Henderson. Mrs. Grogan did admit that she knew the Henderson children owned a interest in the personal property involved in this suit. The only particular tract of land referred to in this particular testimony of Mrs. Grogan was the 50-acre tract.
Appellees also contend that we erroneously stated that there was barely enough proof to show the sale of approximately $1,900 worth of timber from the land after the death of Mrs. Henderson and prior to the filing of the suit, and contends that on page 142 of the Statement of Facts, the testimony of Lloid Henderson related to the sale of $7,000 worth of “timber.” It may have been the intention of Lloid Henderson to so testify, but a careful examination of the testimony shows that he testified relative to one tract of lamd as follows :
“It was a virgin bunch of timber that was left for a home and my Dad told me that he got $2500 for the tract of land * * *” (Emphasis added.)
In other testimony regarding another tract of land, Lloid Henderson testified, on page 142 of the Statement of Facts, as follows:
“The other tract of land that I remember was directly north of the home where it had been cut over, that he told me he got $3500 for that tract of land * * * ” (Emphasis added.)
This testimony indicates what his father got for “land”, not for “timber.”
In view of the extremely confusing and complicated record in this case, we have re-examined the record and the authorities, and remain convinced that the case has been correctly disposed of, and the motion for rehearing is overruled.