Court Opinion

ID: 9828673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:36:46.399509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:51.715824
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In a very able motion for rehearing the defendant in error now calls attention to quite an array of facts and circumstances appearing in the record, which, it is contended, were admissible — when considered together — as at least raising an issue upon the correctness of the weights made at Houston. While the matter is not at all clear of doubt, we conclude that the position should be sustained, and, as a consequence, that the cause should be sent back for another trial below, instead of being rendered here as formerly.
[2] The agreement of the parties to abide by the weights at Houston, while controlling in the sense stated in the original opinion, undoubtedly further meant true and correct weights at that point, and, if the matters referred to did have enough of probative force to reasonably call that result in question, they were competent for the jury as so tending. In other words, although the place of delivery and the governing weight were fixed at Houston by the contract, arid the mere weight at Howth — when not followed by other evidence showing there *1096could have been no change in weight after the car left there — was inadmissible, as originally held, still the weights at Houston were subject by proper evidence to impeachment for error or mistake; the contract here did not provide that the' parties were to go by Cage & Co.’s weights, but simply by the weights, that is, the correct weights, at destination. Standard Oil Co. v. Van Etten, 107 U. S. 325, at page 332, 1 Sup. St. 178, 27 L. Ed. 319; Ruling Case Law, vol. 23, p. 1421, § 245; Cyc. vol. 35, pp. 211, 212,
The motion is accordingly granted to the extent stated, and our original judgment so modified as to remand instead of to render the cause.