Court Opinion

ID: 9828131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:08:00.131538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:44.376766
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Behearing.
On page 1 of the statement of facts we find the following recital:
“Plaintiff next offered in evidence two ‘bonds for title,’ one dated October 1, 1867, by John A. Davis and wife, Mary H. Davis, to Sarah M. Neely.”
This recital is followed by a copy of a bond for title signed by John A. Davis and Mary H. Davis.
In the original opinion we stated that it was shown that W. W. Taylor held the land sued for under a bond for title executed by John A. Davis and wife, Mary H. Davis.
Appellants have filed their motion for rehearing and insist that our finding that Mary H. Davis was the wife of John A. Davis is incorrect, and for the first time direct our attention to the testimony of John A. Davis, saying that Mary-H. Davis was the wife of Bradford Davis. There was no contention that John A. Davis and Mary H. Davis could' not convey the title to the land to W. W. Taylor, whether they be husband and wife or not, and therefore, copying from the statement of facts the recital “that the bond for title was executed by John A. Davis and wife, Mary H. Davis,” and our finding that the bond was so executed, could in no manner affect the conclusion reached by us.
The motion is overruled.