Court Opinion

ID: 9829890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:42:33.402953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:08.405925
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[6, 7] Appellee, Bolin, introduced the letter from Garrison “referring to the note,” and then testified that “soon after receiving the letter,” Garrison came to see him and he “then told Garrison that he never signed the “note” and knew nothing about it. Though the contents of the letter were not introduced, however, for Bolin to “open the way” for its introduction, and then on direct examination to build a case of denials by self-serving declarations, is not proper. If the bank takes the initiative and introduces the letter, Bolin’s statements to Garrison are of course then admissible and appropriate. As to the notice from the bank to Bolin as to the maturity of the note, appellant never introduced it; the introduction by appellee of said notice and the self-serving declarations of Bolin upon direct examination, based upon its introduction by him, are wholly improper.
[8] This is the first time our attention is called to the lack of a bill of exceptions in regard to the refusal of a new trial on newly discovéred testimony; however, appellee is not injured, the cause being so clearly reversible on other grounds discussed in the original opinion.
With the foregoing explanation, the motion for rehearing is overruled.