Court Opinion

ID: 9827261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:20:23.697731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:27.821517
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
As the context clearly indicates, the expression “for railroad purposes” in that part of our original opinion reciting that “the railway company never had any other than a possession for railroad purposes” should have read “for right of way purposes”; beyond that correction, it is not deemed desirable that addition be made to what was there said on the subject.
Plaintiff in error’s insistence on rehearing that the deed from Evans and others to Me-. Iver affected the latter with notice that any part of the land sued for in this cause was then held adversely to those under whom he was acquiring a title is wholly untenable; by the express terms of the agreed statement of facts on which the cause, as to that feature, was tried, the recitation in this deed excepting about 25 or 30 acres from the general warranty could not have had reference to “the land described in plaintiff’s petition” in this suit, because the title to that was agreed to be in Mel ver and those under whom he held.
The motion is overruled.
Overruled.