Court Opinion

ID: 9832448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:55:14.869759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:45.808908
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
 Appellee insists that the testimony on the witness stand given by counsel for appellant on the motion for new trial that he, the witness and counsel, did not know whether the title of the city of Fort Worth was good or not, was sufficient to negate any presumptions arising from the answer on file.
Certainly an answer made fraudulently or in violation of the duty of an attorney as an officer of the court whose signature is required to a pleading, in part as a voucher of good faith in the facts alleged, would not be conclusive against a showing of the former facts. However, this is a statutory motion filed within the ten days allowed by law. *226It is not a proceeding in equity. It fully conforms to the requirements of article 2232, R. S.; article 2092, subd. 29, R. S. -
The. motion is overruled.