Court Opinion

ID: 9830769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:27:51.009151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:26.554528
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It is stated in the original opinion that the payment of $1,500 was made to Judge Sluder after the board of commissioners had voted down an ordinance providing for such payment. This finding of fact is challenged by appellant on motion for rehearing. It appears that the oral testimony in the case is that the ordinance was in fact voted down before the payment was made, and the case seems to have been briefed upon that theory. The record shows the payment was made on February 26, 1923. The minutes of the council show the ordinance was voted on and defeated on March 5th. The oral testimony, undisputed, is that the ordinance repudiating the payment and directing the city attorney to institute suit to recover from ap-pellee the amount so paid him was adopted at the next meeting of the council following the payment. The record shows the repudiating ordinance was passed on March 5th, and it was recited in said ordinance that the payment was made after the ordinance authorizing it had been defeated. In this state of the record, and in the absence of an express finding thereon, we think we are required to resolve the issue against appellant and in support of the right action of the trial court.
In our view of the law of the case, however, it is proper to add that in our opinion the fact is immaterial to the decision rendered.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.