Court Opinion

ID: 9827847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:53:23.606179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:37.817764
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant, in its motion for rehearing, still insists upon all its assignments of error. After a further careful examination of the record, we see no reason for changing our opinion rendered in this case on a former day of this court. Counsel for appellant urge in this motion that a continuance should have been granted by the trial court on account of the absence of leading counsel, and in their .statement say: “That L. H. Mathis and Cecil Storey [local counsel trying the case] were unprepared to develop the facts or properly present plaintiff’s rights under the law on account of the fact that they were unfamiliar with the evidence.” But they fail to point out any fact that was not developed, or any right under the law that was not properly presented.
No new authorities are cited or argument made on the question of the disqualification of the trial judge. The contingency that the Herring National Bank might become insolvent and require an assessment against all the stockholders cannot make the relative of the trial judge a party to this suit; besides, such assessment could not be made by the district court of Wilbarger county. The fact that, in event the son-in-law should die, the wife, the daughter of the trial judge, would inherit from him, then she in turn die without will or issue, the judge would inherit from her, is too remote, inconsequential, and uncertain on which to base any interest of the trial judge, either present or prospective, as said in ease of Bank v. Cook, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 414: “The execution goes against the corporate property, and the individual members can be affected consequentially only in proportion to their interest in the corporate property.”
We think .the evidence is abundant and entirely sufficient to sustain the judgment rendered in the lower court. The facts clearly and distinctly trace the funds of Mrs. Davis through all their mutations into the last land sold, and into the $6,000 deposited in the Herring Bank in her name. Counsel are mistaken in their statement when they say the evidence shows that A. D. Davis placed the money in the bank without the “consent or knowledge of his wife.” Mrs. Davis, in her testimony, says that, when the 320 acres of land was sold for the $12,800, the $6,000 was turned over to her as her money, and that she told her husband to place it in the Herring Bank in “my name, for my protection.”
Finding no errors in the record, the motion for rehearing is in all things overruled.
Hon. A. B. MARTIN was appointed Special Chief Justice, in place of HUFF, C. J., disqualified. Hon. M. J. HATHAWAY was appointed Special Associate Justice, in place of HALL, J., disqualified.