Court Opinion

ID: 9833996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:12:47.325502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:10.503767
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION EOR REHEARING.
We, held in our former opinion that there was no evidence of rental value as contended by appellants, but find from another investigation of the record that there was testimony to the effect that the premises were of the rental value of $15 a month. There is, however, no testimony as to when Hart took possession of the premises, and there is there*275fore no basis for the verdict of the jury as to rent, and the former conclusion of the court was therefore correct. The judgment striking the amount from the judgment will be set aside, and it is the order of the court that unless a remittitur of the amount of the rent be made in five days, the judgment of the District Court will be reversed and the cause remanded, but in case the remittitur is made, it will be affirmed. What was said by this court in reference to Mrs. Meredith being authorized to convey to J. C. Meredith land not exceeding in value her indebtedness to him, in payment of such indebtedness, had no reference to the land in controversy, as contended by appellants in their motion for rehearing, but to the land in San Antonio which was sold by her to him in payment of a debt.
Appellants have filed an application for the finding of fact that on February 1, 1895, when she executed the deed to S. W. Smith to the San Antonio property, Mrs. Mary K. Meredith was insolvent, and we so find.
The motions of appellants and appellees for a rehearing are overruled.

Overruled.

Writ of error refused.
James, Chief Justice, did not sit in this case.