Court Opinion

ID: 9830205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:58:51.820627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:16.047222
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant in his motion for rehearing questions our holding in the- original opinion that the evidence showed Saxon to be an accommodation maker of the note in suit, and refers us to the testimony of Saxon appearing on page 152 of the statement of facts.
We were fully aware of the testimony now referred to, but concluded then, and are of the opinion now, that the statement of Saxon had no reference to the execution of the note and his purpose or thoughts at that time.
The statement made by Saxon, as we understand it, referred to what he was thinking on May 7,1932, and not on March 9, 1931, the date on which he signed the note.
With this explanation we think the motion for rehearing should be overruled.