Court Opinion

ID: 9833398
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:40:59.862563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:02.353503
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In its motion for rehearing appellee insists, among other things: (1) That the trial court’s judgment for debt against E. L.'Brod, personally, be affirmed; and (2) that the record shows, if a trust be admitted to have been established, that said minors owned only a x%5 undivided interest in said block of land, the remaining 2%s interest being owned by E. L. Brod individually, and that therefore judgment should be rendered foreclosing the bank’s attachment lien on his interest.
As to the first question, appellee is correct. Brod did not deny owing the debt sued upon nor has he appealed individually from that portion of the judgment. In so far, therefore, as the personal judgment in favor of the bank against Brod- individually for its debt is concerned, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
*775As to the second contention made, it does not appear that the case was fully developed as to the several interests of all the children of Brod, the full effect of his settlement with Edwin Brod, his oldest son, with regard to the property involved, nor as to Brod’s right to prefer his children as creditors, if he were so e'ntitled, over other creditors. Under these circumstances, we think the judgment, other than as above indicated, should be reversed and the cause remanded. The motion will therefore be granted in part and in part overruled.
Granted in part and in part overruled.