Court Opinion

ID: 9833574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:50:33.766714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:04.464635
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The appellant Van Dyke complains in a motion for a rehearing that he was denied relief in the trial court on a cross-action against his codefendants C. C. Crump and others, upon a note for the purchase money of a tract of land lying between the Righley survey and the Sulphur Porks Iron Works survey. It appears that at the time Crump purchased the land there was some uncertainty as to the true location of the boundary line between those two surveys, and the (Crumps were given the privilege of paying for the disputed strip when the conflict was settled. That disputed strip was not involved in this suit as instituted by the plaintiffs, nor was that issue raised by Wilson & Norris, the defendants in the original action.
The appellant Van Dyke sought to introduce into the controversy a subject-matter wholly foreign to the principal litigation; and, while the court below may have been incorrect in the grounds upon which it denied him any relief, it committed no error in refusing to render a judgment in his favor upon his cross-action. It may be that he is entitled to the relief which he here seeks, when applied for in a proper proceeding. His motion will therefore be overruled without prejudice to his right to institute at some future time a proper suit for the recovery of the judgment which he seeks.
We have carefully considered the motion filed by the appellees Wilson & Norris, and see no reason why we should disturb the judgment heretofore rendered, and their motion is accordingly overruled.