Court Opinion

ID: 9829672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:31:14.101925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:04.030921
License: Public Domain

On Second Motions for Rehearing.
We have found no unusual difficulty in deciding the principal legal issues in this case, namely, (a) that appellee was not liable for the sum of $12,257.00, which was the cost of the fishing job, and (b) that ap-pellee was liable for two-thirds of the cost of casing, tubing, cement and cementing the Gilliam. But we have found the method of accounting employed by appellant with the laudable pur-pose of simplifying the case somewhat confusing. We have concluded that its pleading was sufficient to put all items in issue, and that our holding with respect to its secpnd point (designated as “(b)” hereinabove) requiring the judgment rendered in our original opinion, was correct.
Therefore, appellee’s second motion for rehearing, including his original and amended motions to correct this Court’s judgment, and appellant’s second motion for rehearing are refused.
Motions refused.