Court Opinion

ID: 9680635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:35:32.572568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:29.778627
License: Public Domain

*461OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellants, in their motion to this court to set aside the opinion rendered herein on November 16, 1966 affirming the trial court’s judgment, and asking for a rehearing and that the trial court’s judgment be reversed, request additional findings of fact.
The record that came to us from the trial court contains an “Agreed Statement of Facts” in this language:
“The parties to the above entitled and numbered cause, under the provisions of Rule 378, of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, agree that the following is a statement of the case and of the facts proven, upon which judgment shall be rendered therein, the controversy being submitted to the Court upon the same, and such agreed statement of facts, without further record or need therefor: * * * >t
The opinion of this court was based upon this Agreed Statement of Facts, and we find it unnecessary to enlarge upon the facts as agreed to and as set out in our opinion.
Appellants’ motion calls the attention of this court to the first page of our opinion in which they maintain that it is implied that Marsha Kalmore Diamond was a party to the automobile financing agreement between appellees and David S. Diamond and the other three men engaged in business as Logan Auto Sales.
This court did not intend such implication, and if such implication is to be found in the language used, the court wishes to state that the langauge used was intended to apply only to David S. Diamond without the inclusion of Marsha Kalmore Diamond as being engaged in such agreement.
All other requested additional findings of fact are believed to be covered by the Agreed Statement of Facts in the record, and we deem it unnecessary to repeat them here.
The points of error set out in the motion for rehearing, together with the arguments thereunder, are hereby overruled, and the motion for rehearing in said cause is hereby overruled and denied.