Court Opinion

ID: 9833333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:37:42.528195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:01.656357
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In their motion for rehearing, appellants insist that our opinion in this case is in conflict with the opinion of the Supreme Court in Kahn v. Kahn, 94 Tex. 114, 58 S. W. 825.
If the language used by Judge Williams in one portion of that opinion be taken literally, there is an apparent conflict. In that case, however, there was before the court a deed from Kahn to his wife, wherein the consideration for the conveyance was recited as “paid by Amelia Kahn out of her separate funds, and for her separate use and benefit.” The issue there presented was whether or not the husband could offer parol evidence for the purpose of showing that he did not intend by this deed to convey to his wife in her separate right Ms interest in the property. Clearly such evidence was not admissible, and our holding in this case is in keeping with, the *128opinion in that case. The question of failure of consideration was not there involved, and was not being discussed by Judge Williams. The language used in that opinion must be considered in the light of the facts and of the issues before the court in that case.’ When so considered, the apparent conflict disappears.
Appellants’ motion is overruled.
Motion overruled.