Court Opinion

ID: 9832176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:41:19.204807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:43.472817
License: Public Domain

On Motion of Appellant for a Rehearing.
Appellee for himself and Dr. Simpson for appellants were the only witnesses who testified with reference to the value of the property in question. We have carefully re-read their testimony in connection with the motion, and adhere to the conclusion reached when the record was first before us that the findings of the jury (1) that said property did not have a cash market value in Alba and (2) that the value thereof to appellee was $1,250 were not without support in testimony of said witnesses. Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Wallraven (Tex. Civ. App.) 160 S. W. 116; Pecos & N. T. R. Co. v. Grundy (Tex. Civ. App.) 171 S. W. 318; Black v. Nabarrette (Tex. Civ. App.) 281 S. W. 1087; Dallas Hotel Co. v. Blanchette (Tex. Civ. App.) 246 S. W. 1065; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Wilson Hack Line, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 38,101 S. W. 1042.
*506The statement in the opinion affirming the judgment that Dr. Simpson resided in Alba was incorrect, as appellants insist it was. He resided instead in Greenville.
The motion is overruled.