Court Opinion

ID: 9831633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:15:36.20029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:36.634240
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In their motion for rehearing, appellants, among other things, assert that the case of Converse v. Ringer, 6 Tex.Civ.App. 51, 24 S.W. 705, 708, relied on by us in our opinion in this case, has been overruled by the later case of Blum Land Co. v. Rogers, 11 Tex.Civ.App. 184, 32 S.W. 713, writ of error denied. • We have carefully examined all the cases citing Converse v. Ringer, supra, and we find that a portion of the opinion in that case was criticized in the Blum Case. ' But we also find that the *695holding in Converse v. Ringer, supra, was upheld and approved in Price v. Eardley, 34 Tex.Civ.App. 60, 77 S.W. 416, writ denied, in which case the holding in the Blum Case was overturned. Hendricks v. Huffmeyer, 15 Tex.Civ.App. 93, 38 S.W. 523, affirmed by Supreme Court, 90 Tex. 577, 40 S.W. 1, also expressly approved the holding in Converse v. Ringer, supra. Numerous other cases have cited with approval the Converse v. Ringer opinion, and we are convinced that it is an authoritative holding of the matters discussed therein.
It could serve no good purpose to discuss further the matters contained in our original opinion.
Therefore, the motion-for rehearing is in all things overruled.