Court Opinion

ID: 9833404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:41:13.730478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:02.378480
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In the motion for rehearing, ap-pellees complain of our failure to sustain their motion to dismiss the appeal. We considered the motion and overruled it, but, through oversight, no order was entered. The motion is based upon the alleged mis-description of the judgment, in that, in the appeal bond the judgment is described as having been rendered on June 8, 1936, whereas the record discloses that it was actually rendered June 8, 1937. The error is typographical and obviously is corrected by the record, in that, it is disclosed that the suit was not instituted until May 18, 1937, and all proceedings had therein were subsequent to that date. Besides, the defect in the bond being a mere informality, amendable under the statute (Vernon’s Ann. Civ.St. art. 1840 — A), the motion raising the question, under rule 8 governing this court, should have been filed within 30 days after the filing of the transcript, which was not done. The motion to dismiss is overruled.
In paragraph 2 of the motion, appellees say we erred in stating that appellants’ answer alleged “that by their failure to protest the erection of the house in question until it was more than half completed, ap-pellees were estopped to prosecute their alleged cause of action”; the contention being that appellants’ answer contained no such allegation. Counsel for appellees is correct in saying that the allegation referred to did not appear in appellants’ an-' swer; however, the contention of appellants, in the respect mentioned, was cor*88rectly stated, although not appearing in their answer, it was set forth very, distinctly in proposition No. 6 of appellants’ brief. In paragraph 3, appellees say we erred in stating that, “appellants alleged by their answer that appellees had permitted the erection of ‘approximately 25 structures in the addition similar in design and cost to the house in question, some of which had been in use for seven years’; the answer specifying only 12 structures in the addition alleged to be similar in design and cost to appellants’ structure, and further alleged ‘there are other structures on other lots in the addition that do not comply with the alleged restrictions.’ ” Again, as a mere literalism, counsel’s criticism may be correct, but is incorrect in substance, in that, in their answer, appellants mentioned 10 or 12 instances (also others of a similar nature without mentioning the number) where the same character of houses as the one under construction by Davis were erected and had been in the addition for 7 or 8 years, in regard to which appellees did not complain or protest.; hence, the contention that they were estopped to complain against appellants. Also, in their brief, proposition No. 7, appellants contend that, because appellee, without objection, permitted “about twenty-five structures in the addition similar in design to the house in question, some of which have been in the addition for seven or eight years,” they were estopped to complain against appellants. We have noticed the above objections, not because of their materiality, but for the sake of accuracy.
In our statement of the nature of the suit, mentioning the parties, we said: “ * * * appellant Monk evidently was made a party on the suspicion that he owned some interest in the property. However, the facts revealed that he neither owned or claimed any interest therein.” In paragraph 4 of their motion, appellees say: “The court erred in finding that appellant Monk neither owned nor claimed any interest in the house in question, there being no evidence to support the finding. The evidence showed that appellant Monk had participated in and was interested in the construction .of the house.” With reference to this matter, the record fails to disclose any .writing showing that Monk owned any'interest in the property, but did disclose that he was a real estate broker and builder, and had had dealings with Mr. Hahnel, the contractor. Being asked, “What is your connection with the construction of this house in controversy?” he answered, “At the time this house was started, Mr. Hahnel had, as I understood, entered into a contract with Mr. Davis to erect this particular type of house. During that time Mr. Hahnel had also been looking after some building for me because I didn’t have time to run my own business and look after it. During that time Mr. Hahnel was employed by the Government as an assistant appraiser, and he asked me if I would go out and look after the supervising of this building, see that payrolls were made up and the material delivered on the job and -the men got through with the construction. Other than that I had no connection with it.” At another point, Monk said that he furnished $211.68 of his own money to pay the men working on the job, and that he was looking to Hahnel for reimbursement; again was asked, whether he was planning to sell the house, and answered, “Got no price on it to sell at all. I haven’t been instructed to sell it.” So, in view of Monk’s testimony, in the absence of any writing showing that he owned any interest in the premises, we think our statement as to him, heretofore quoted, is correct, and the same will be adhered to.
The original opinion states the reasons for our holdings, and, in our opinion, is a sufficient answer to the grounds alleged for rehearing. After due consideration, the motion is overruled.
Overruled.