Court Opinion

ID: 9831019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:42:40.418484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:29.450360
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In their motion for rehearing, appellants insist that an assignment of error that there was no evidence to support a fact finding included within its scope an assignment that the finding was against the great-*151weight and overwhelming preponderance of the evidence.
This court certified this identical question to the Supreme Court in the case of Hall Music Co. v. Robinson (Tex. Com. App.) 1 S.W. (2d) 857, and the answer of the Supreme Court to the certificate was to the effect that one assignment was a question of law and the other a question of fact, and that therefore the greater did not include the less.
It is argued in' the motion for rehearing with much reason that the intention of the vendors when they executed the deeds of March 4th was to convey to the vendees one-half of their mineral interest in their lands. We agree that the evidence would support that conclusion, but that fact was not before us for consideration. Appellants might have been entitled to have the deeds of March 4th so reformed as to convey together a one-half interest instead of a one-sixteenth interest, but that relief was not prayed for. The fact that the deeds of March 4th did not convey as great an interest as was intended does not justify us in holding that the deeds of August Tth were executed by the vendors, in the face of a holding by the trial court, supported by testimony, that the vendors did not execute these deeds.
We have carefully considered the motion for rehearing, but are of the opinion that it should be overruled.