Court Opinion

ID: 9832174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:41:11.649474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:51.837201
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellants move for rehearing, among •others, on the following' ground: “First. Because the Court erred in holding that the statements in defendant’s brief show that Henry G. Dannelly, plaintiffs’ predecessor in title did not own or have any interest in the lands over which the street is sought to be opened.”
This assignment is leveled at the following statement in our original opinion; -we said: “The uncontroverted statements in defendants’ brief show that Henry G. •Dannelly, plaintiffs’ predecessor in title, did not own or have any interest in the lands over-which the street is sought to-he opened, at the time he joined in the execution of the deed above mentioned; * * * »
Appellants neither challenged the correctness of appellees’ statement in a reply, nor do they challenge its correctness at this time; their position seems to be that, the Court was without authority to accept as correct, the unchallenged statement.
We overrule that contention, and, after considering all grounds urged for rehearing and believing same to be without merit, the motion is overruled.