Court Opinion

ID: 9827520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:37:03.724628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:32.603875
License: Public Domain

*1073On Second Motion for Rehearing.
This is a second motion for rehearing filed in behalf of appellee without leave granted therefor and, therefore, not entitled to consideration as a motion. By it, however, onr attention has been called to the fact that, in disposing of appellee’s cross-assignment of error on a former day of the term, we were mistaken in doing so upon the ground that such assignment had not been filed in the court below. The single copy of the brief containing the clerk’s certificate of such filing indorsed on an inner fold of the brief was overlooked by the writer, and not finding any such cross-assignment in the transcript nor in a filed brief made the mistake indicated. We regard the mistake immaterial, however, inasmuch as we think the ruling justified on another ground not before noticed.
[9] The cross-assignment, together with its supporting statement, as presented in the brief, there being no separate proposition, is as follows: “The court erred in holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover rents and in refusing request of plaintiff that the question of rents be submitted to the jury, and in rendering judgment against plaintiff that he take nothing as to rents, and in not instructing the jury to find for plaintiff rents in the sum of $6 per month from the 2d day of January, 1906, to the date of the trial. Statement The defendant R. J. Slagle testified that a reasonable rental value of the south half of the property in controversy from the date of the sheriff’s sale when he took possession up to the date of trial was $6 per month. Defendant E. L. Murmert testified: T took possession on the 11th day of April, 1906, and have been in possession ever since; that is, the south half. The reasonable rental value of said property from date of sale, January 2, 1906, to the present time, is the sum of $6 per month; that is, for the south half that I am in possession of.’ ”
We think it apparent that, if the assignment itself is not objectionable as containing more than a single proposition, the statement entirely fails to support the assignment. Prom the statement it nowhere appears that the court held that appellee was not entitled to recover rents or omitted or refused a request for the submission of the issue, nor by reference to the record have we been able to find any such action on the part of the court. The court’s charge simply ignored the issue, and the error, if any, was one of omission merely calling for a -requested instruction, and the record discloses no such request.
We therefore, notwithstanding the mistake noted, think our former conclusion upon the motion for rehearing should remain undisturbed. '