Court Opinion

ID: 9832671
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:05:48.800748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:50.020081
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Some inaccuracies of statement, not affecting the correctness of our former judgment, have been pointed out; the statement on page 4 of the opinion in reference to the findings of the jury, other than upon special issue No. 10, “Neither do the pleadings or proof sustain any of the others, we think,” was meant to apply only to those findings of losses in the operation of the business relied upon as showing the damages recovered for, as the same are epitomized at the top of page 3 of the opinion; it should be so confined, the ensuing context plainly showing that such alone was the idea in the mind of this court. It became unnecessary, under the view taken of the legal effect of the finding thus made, to state specific ones upon all the numerous other answers of the jury, hence that was not done.
*600This declaration concerning the criticized argument of appellee’s counsel, “That it was reasonably calculated .to prejudice the rights of opposing parties, under all the facts and circumstances, is self-evident, and in such instanced injury will be presumed,” has been by them misconstrued; obviously, being specifically restricted to the facts of this case, it should not be understood as declaring generally that injury will always be presumed to flow from improper argument, no matter what countervailing conditions otherwise may appear.
The motion for rehearing under accompanying oral and written 'arguments from able counsel on both sides, has been most carefully considered, but, being unconvinced of error in the original disposition of the appeal, it must be adhered to; there is plainly no evidence of any probative force either that the tire company was only worth at the time of tliis purchase $30,500, or as to what was then the market value of the $39,000 note given in part payment therefor; in person upon this trial the witness McNally, on whom alone appellee relies for proof of this deficiency in the value of the business, stated that he did not in his testimony by deposition, in fixing the value of the tire company, take into account the value of its bills receivable — that the only thing he considered was the equipment, machinery, and stock. Neither was their amount or value otherwise shown. Upon the other hand, the testimony of appellant Ulrich tended to indicate that their- value was about $12,722.22.
The motion will be overruled.
Overruled.