Court Opinion

ID: 9824729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:11:45.107486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:00.158710
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In the opinion of Justices SOMERVILLE,-THOMAS, and BOULDIN there is no variance.
It is insisted, among other things, in the brief of appellant’s counsel on rehearing, that there is an apparent variance between the contract treated and discussed as proven in the opinion of the court and the one described in amended count 4. If such is the case, which we do not concede except for the purpose of replying to the brief, this was but a variance not argued or insisted upon in the *558original-brief.' Nor does it appear that said variance as contended for was brought to the attention of the trial court when the general charge was requested as to amended count 4. Circuit Court Rule 34.
The other points made upon rehearing are fully discussed in the original opinion, and after a careful reconsideration of same we are not disposed to recede.
Application overruled.
ANDERSON, C. J„ and SOMERVILLE, THOMAS, and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.