Court Opinion

ID: 9671736
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:42:45.401985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:11.739653
License: Public Domain

On Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing
The only part of appellants’ motion for rehearing we deem it necessary to notice by writing is the part that points out that if the instrument from Edward Straw-bridge to Ethel Strawbridge is a deed, as we have held, this would take title out of Edward Strawbridge and he could not be the common source of title as between ap-pellee and appellants. Of course, we are dealing with a record which reflects appellants’ sole claim to title is under Edward Strawbridge as his heirs. Appellee’s claim to title, apart from limitation, is under Edward Strawbridge. It would seem to us that if such is the only source of title claimed by appellants and appellee, the rules as to common source would apply though on trial proof might be wanting that appellants had any title out of Straw-bridge. Of course, we do not know what the claim may be on a retrial of the case.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.