Court Opinion

ID: 9827359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:26:54.057712+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:29.664779
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing and for Additional Findings.
It is complained by appellant that in our original opinion we held that Brockett and North Elm streets were not in the corporate limits of the city of Sherman, and our attention is directed to the testimony of city engineer as follows:
“In 1913 and 1914 * * * I was in charge of the work of constructing the paving, curbing, and guttering on West Brockett and North Elm streets in the city of Sherman. Levy & Levy did the work.”
We therefore find that said streets are within the corporate limits, and the paving was done under a contract between appellee and' the city of Sherman, but that it was voluntary on the part of abutting owners as to whether they sighed a contract for paving in front of their property.
As to the time Chapman signed the contract for paving there was some evidence tending to show that it was about September 17, 1913, but we also find as in the original opinion in support of the judgment that it was signed several months after that time. The finding that said streets were in the corporate limits does not, in our opinion, change the result in disposing of the case, and the motion for rehearing is overruled. •