Court Opinion

ID: 9831872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:26:42.486319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:38.740096
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees have filed an exhaustive motion for rehearing in this case, which under careful consideration discloses no question for review other than this court considered and disposed of in the original opinion; and we still think that the agreement entered into, as quoted in the original opinion, the pleadings of appellees, and the undisputed evidence that the land in dispute is a different grant from the grant specifically pleaded by appellees, and the testimony of the appellees’ witnesses precludes a recovery by them. Authorities: Davidson et al. v. Equitable Sureties Company, 96 S. W. 787; Titel v. Garland, 99 Tex. 201, 87 S. W. 1152; Holland et al. v. Nance, 102 Tex. 177, 114 S. W. 346.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.