Court Opinion

ID: 9829314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:11:30.7637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:59.798918
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[8] Counsel for appellee have presented a lengthy motion for rehearing which we have endeavored to consider with all of the care such a painstaking and able presentation merits. We, however, believe that in our original opinion we made a fair statement of the substantial facts upon which the rights of the parties in the case depend, and therefrom drew the proper legal conclusions. It is well settled that we need not set out the evidence upon which our conclusions of fact are based, and if by inadvertence we overlooked any “undisputed fact,” it will not operate to appellee’s prejudice before the higher reviewing tribunal, inasmuch as our Supreme Court may consider “undisputed” facts with or without finding on our part. See Biano Co. v. Hollingsworth, 91 Tex. 49; Stewart v. Robbins, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 188, 65 S. W. 899; Rountree v. Thompson, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 595, 71 S. W. 574, 72 S. W. 69; Vansickle v. Watson, 103 Tex. 37, 123 S. W. 114.
The motion for rehearing and the additional findings is accordingly overruled.