Court Opinion

ID: 9828605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:33:06.389359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:51.026060
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In appellants’ motion for rehearing, our attention is called to an error, in which we said:
“As to the order of sale, the court found that the mistake was made in transcribing the order to the minutes, and in transcribing wrote ‘west’ instead of ‘east.’ ”
We should have made this statement with reference to the original report of sale, instead of order of sale, as is shown by the eighth finding of facts, as set out in the opinion, and we now make the correction so as to conform our statement to the said finding.
Appellant further urges that the opinion does not pass upon any assignment other than the first. We think it does, but because the opinion does not reveal the exact points urged by the assignments 2 to 9, inclusive, we add that assignments 2, 3, and 4 charge error in admitting in evidence certain minutes of the probate court embracing the order of the court confirming the sale and the guardian’s deed. It will be noted that the opinion holds there was no error in admitting these items. The entries made in the probate proceedings show what action the probate court took preceding the deed, and it would then be a question to be determined whether the several actions of the probate court in connection with the deed were sufficient to pass the title of the ward’s estate. Hermann v. Likens, 90 Tex. 448, 39 S. W. 282; Robertson v. Johnson, 57 Tex. 62; Wells v. Polk, 36 Tex. 126.
[3] Assignments 5 to 9 assign error in the trial. court’s conclusions of law applied to these items. The conclusions of law are, in effect, simply comments by the trial court upon the probative force of the admitted confirmation order and deed, and, in our opinion, are not material to the judgment entered. In fact, it would seem that, to charge error in the conclusions of law of a trial court, other than the judgment, is in effect only to charge that the judgment does not follow the-findings of fact. Appellant does not attack the trial court’s findings of fact, and we think the proper judgment was entered on the facts found.
With the above correction and observation on the assignments of error, the motion for rehearing is, in all other respects, overruled-