Court Opinion

ID: 9831602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:14:26.666943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:36.389712
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
We think one contention in the motion for rehearing makes it desirable that we write this statement on rehearing. It is contended that we erred in the original opinion in connection with pur discussion of the action of the trial court in excluding the proffered testimony of the appellant, as to his personal services to, and contract with, J. Goodwin, in stating -that this testimony related only to the deed executed by I. Goodwin and wife during his lifetime. It is insisted that such personal services were alleged in the pleading to be a part of the consideration for the execution both of the prior deed and of the deed executed by Mrs. Goodwin and Frank Goodwin after the death of J. Goodwin. Appellant’s bill of exceptions No. 20 preserves this matter, and it is there stated that appellant would have testified that he performed these personal services for J. Goodwin in accordance with an agreement on the part of the said J. Goodwin to the effect that, if appellant did so render said services and perform said work and assist said Goodwin and wife in looking after their affairs, “said I. Goodwin would either devise at his death to defendant the farm known as the lower place, or said parties would convey to the defendant said property while living.” The bill of exceptions does not show that the witness would have testified that the services were rendered under any agreement in any manner affecting or concerning the title to the home place, which was deeded after the death of J. Goodwin.
We therefore think our conclusion as expressed in the original opinion that this proffered testimony related only to the deed to the lower place made during J. Goodwin’s lifetime is not subject to the criticism made thereof.
We have considered the motion for rehearing, and the same is overruled.