Court Opinion

ID: 9827990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:00:08.619814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:33.614786
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
By motion for rehearing appellant has called our attention to the fact that our original opinion contains the following inaccurate findings: First, that a part of block 2 of the Moodyman addition was involved in the suit; second, that Eliza Moody-man executed deeds to Jones and Roberts; and, third, that Warner Moodyman had continuously lived with his mother in .the homestead situated on lots 2 and 5 up to the date of the trial of this cause.
While none of these findings did or could materially affect the issues presented by this appeal, we cheerfully make the following findings:
First. While no part of block 2 was sued for, it was so connected with that involved that it was necessary to frequently refer to the same as was done in the opinion, but the statement that it was part of the property sued for in no way materially affects the issues involved in the appeal.
Second. We inadvertently stated that Eliza Moodyman executed deeds to Jones and Roberts to those parts of blocks 1 and 2 on which their names appear. We are unable to find any evidence to support such statements, but such statements in no way could or did affect the material issues presented by this appeal.
Third. We find that the evidence does show that at the time the deeds from Charles Moodyman to Uloth and others were executed Warner Moodyman was a minor and lived with hib mother on lots 2 and 5 until he married in 1896, and that since said time he has lived elsewhere, and that our finding that he resided on lots 2 and 5 up to the date of the trial of this cause is not supported by the evidence, but we do not think that such finding was material or did in any way affect the issues presented by this appeal.
Having made these corrections in our findings, the motion for rehearing is refused.