Court Opinion

ID: 9829787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:37:42.87309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:06.410905
License: Public Domain

*1015On Motion for Rehearing.
Defendants (appellants) urge upon motion for rehearing that the question of whether the’ deed of November 1, 1921 (“the contract of sale”); was rescinded, is .an ultimate issue and should have been ■submitted to the jury by plaintiffs (appel-lees), and is not a matter which can be resolved by the court.
Under plaintiffs’ theory of the case, -which the jury accepted and established "by their answers to Special issues Nos. 1 ■and 2, the deed in question was executed as, and was intended to be, a mere mortgage, and was so accepted by defendant. Thus, though said deed was in form a “contract of sale”, by the understanding of the parties to it, it was a mortgage. That said “contract of sale” should be rescinded and not ripen into a conveyance was a mere incident to the understanding that it should in reality be a mortgage.
We overrule the motion for rehearing.