Court Opinion

ID: 9834136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:19:34.943281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:11.928115
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The statement in our main opinion, in discussing the question of the qualification of the juror Taylor, that, “We must determine* this question from the testimony of the juror, as we must assume in support of the judgment that all issues of fact raised by the evidence were found in favor of the party in whose favor the judgment was rendered,” was intended to apply to the' conflicts^ in the testimony, especially to the conflict" between the testimony of Miss Petit that Mr. Taylor, before he was'selected as a juror, in a conversation with her said that appellee “J. D. Pickett was a fine man and that he hoped Pickett won his suit for the land against Hall,” and Mr. Taylor’s testimony that such conversation “or any similar conversation absolutely did not take place.”
With this limitation of the scope and application of the above-quoted portion of our original opinion, we adhere to the conclusions therein expressed, and appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.