Court Opinion

ID: 9828897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:49:54.74982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:54.184777
License: Public Domain

On Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing.
In the “ninth error assigned” in the motion, complaint is made of the underscored words in the following sentence in our original opinion:
“The effect of -Callaway’s testimony was that he continuously urged Chrestman and Ms attorney to send the abstract and papers to the Land Bank, so that the loan might be passed and completed, and he could never get them to do so, and finally brought the suit.”
The contention is made that .the record does not show any such request was made of Chrestman’s attorney. The record is. very meager as to what transpired between Chrest-man’s attorney and Callaway, and it may be that the inference that such request was made to him cannot fairly be drawn therefrom. We can see- no importance whatever attaching to this finding, but, since appellee’s counsel request elimination of the .objectionable words in the sentence quoted, we accordingly do so, and the sentence is hereby corrected to read:
“The éffect of Callaway’s testimony was that' he continuously urged Chrestman to send the abstract and papers to the Land Bank, so that the loan might be passed and completed, and he could never get him to do so, and finally brought the suit.”.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.