Court Opinion

ID: 9830579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:17:46.399002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:24.471418
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION EOR REHEARING.
In the motion for rehearing our attention has been called to the fact that in reciting the evidence in the original opinion we were in error in stating that the evidence tended to show that “after S. E. Jones sent his message to appellee he several times went to the telegraph office in Jacksonville * * * for the purpose of securing an answer.” We do not know how this oversight crept into the record, but upon this rehearing, having carefully examined the facts, we find no such evidence, although alleged, and although it was recited as an alleged fact in the opinion on the former appeal, that appeal having been decided on demurrer.
As stated in the opinion, however, the evidence did sh'ow that S. E. Jones lived within a short distance of the telegraph office in Jacksonville, and that he was well known to the employes in said office and in said town, and we do not, deem the fact so erroneously stated as of controlling influence. We therefore overrule the motion for rehearing, with the correction indicated.

Overruled.