Court Opinion

ID: 9831676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:16:52.554575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:36.920389
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In its motion for rehearing appellant questions the statement in the original opinion to the effect that the conversations between appellee and Judge Keys, *188complained of in appellant’s second proposition, were had in the presence of appellant’s agent, Mr. Nixon. In that statement we erred. Mr. Nixon was not present at any of said conversations. The error becomes immaterial to the decision, however, in view of the conclusion now to be stated.
We held that the trial court did not err in refusing, upon appellant’s motion, to strike the testimony of appellee wherein he related two conversations with Judge Keys, in which the latter agreed, in behalf of appellant, to pay appellee a commission if he procured for appellant the property here involved. In its motion appellant vigorously questions our holding upon that question, which is raised in appellant’s second proposition. We have carefully reviewed the record, and conclude that that testimony was erroneously admitted over appellant’s timely objection, and that it was technical error upon the part of the trial judge to refuse to strike that testimony, upon appellant’s motion at the conclusion ■ thereof. But in reviewing the statement of facts we find that in its cross-examination of appellee, appellant elicited from him substantially the same testimony as that here complained of, thereby rendering harmless its erroneous admission upon direct examination.
Appellant’s motion will be overruled.