Court Opinion

ID: 9830252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:01:59.91344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:16.906147
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We are inclined to agree with the contention in appellants’ motion for rehearing that the objection made to the testimony complained of in appellants’ first and second assignments of error was in effect an objection on the ground of hearsay. Nevertheless, we reiterate the holding that the admission of that testimony did not constitute reversible error. There was no dispute as to the general effect of the agreement between Ray and Loucks, and the determination of that issue, in its details, was beside the controlling finding, that the parties tyere to share equally in the net profits of the transaction. We conclude that, giving effect to the finding of the jury upon the controlling issue, as we must do, the substantial justice of the case has been met.
All motions for rehearing will be overruled.