Court Opinion

ID: 9831423
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:05:49.225732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:34.685175
License: Public Domain

*689On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee insists that appellants did not preserve the record in the eonrt below in such manner as to entitle them to complain in this court of the matters discussed in the original opinion. This is probably true¡ as to some of appellants’ complaints, but we felt it our duty to express our views upon the law of those points, for the benefit of the court below upon another trial, and without reference to defective preservation or presentation of those points here. The matter of estoppel and the claim for reimbursements were not, but of course should have been, properly pleaded in the trial court, and the assignments based thereon were considered, not for the purpose of reversal, but only for the purpose of discussing them in view of another trial, in which the court below should be guided by the pleadings and evidence then before it. Appellees also contend that appellant cannot here, complain of the admission of Will Allen’s testimony of certain conduct, transactions, and conversations of Andrew Allen, now deceased, because the record shows the admission of similar testimony of the same witness, without objection from appellants. It is true that this witness did testify to other facts which were more or less related to the facts embraced in his testimony of which appellants complain in their brief. The record shows that, while appellants objected at the time to the admission of all of this testimony, and reserved their exceptions in bills appearing in the transcript, some of those bills are not made the subject of assignments of error brought forward in appellants’ brief. By their failure to present and urge these assignments in this court, appellants of course waived their objections to the admission of the testimony embraced in those assignments, and that testimony should be given the same force in this court as should be given it if it had been admitted without objection. So, if the disposition of this appeal depended upon the assignment complaining of the admission of the testimony of Will Allen embraced in such assignment, the judgment would be affirmed if it appeared that other testimony to the same effect had been admitted without objection urged here. As the disposition of the appeal was not dependent upon this assignment, however, it is unnecessary 'to determine the similarity of the testimony, admitted without objection, to that admitted over objection. We will simply say that, in our opinion, the whole of the testimony of Will Allen, in which he recalled the details of the conduct and conversations of, and transactions with, Andrew Allen, are clearly inhibited by article 3690, and upon proper objection should be excluded, if again offered.
We find it proper to withdraw the statement in the original opinion that the evidence conclusively shows want of constructive notice to Mrs. Gray, of the alleged vices in the conveyances attached by appellees. There appears to be some confusion with reference to the dates of the transactions, and of the filing for record of the conveyances, and we prefer to relegate the issues thereof to the trial court for determination from the evidence upon another trial.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.