Court Opinion

ID: 9828510
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:27:12.635111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:49.941709
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In our original opinion we were not accurate in saying of appellee’s testimony: “It offered no proof of ownership, other than the possession of the note sued upon.” Appellee did not have possession of the sale contract which it offered as a note. This contract on its face proposed to purchase the two adding machines upon the terms and stipulations set out in the contract. This contract was executed in duplicate, and the original was filed with the county clerk of Jefferson county. Appellee offered in evidence only a photostatic copy of the original, and it was not shown that it ever had in its possession either of the duplicate copies. With this addition to the statement made in the original opinion, Webb v. Reynolds, 207 S. W. 917, by the Commission of Appeals, is directly in point, sustaining our conclusions.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.