Court Opinion

ID: 9828115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:06:29.617595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:43.718764
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Counsel for appellant, in his motion for rehearing, in this cause, earnestly insists ■ that this court was in error in practically all of the questions that we decided, and again insists that we should reverse and render the judgment in this case in appellant’s favor. We have given to the motion for rehearing very careful consideration in view of the earnestness of counsel’s insistence, and the importance of the questions involved, but have again concluded that our original disposition of this appeal was correct and must, therefore, overrule appellant’s motion for rehearing.
We find in the motion for rehearing this statement made by counsel for appellant: “The court should not have considered for any purpose the instrument filed by appellees on November 2, 1928, after the cause had been submitted on October 25, 1928.”
The instrument referred to is the original deed to Goodrich mentioned in our original opinion in this case. While we did not state expressly in the original opinion that we had not considered this instrument for any purpose in making our disposition of this matter, we think that what we said in that connection clearly implied that we had not considered this instrument for any purpose in reaching our disposition of this appeal. But since counsel for appellant seems to be. of the opinion that we did consider this Goodrich deed for some purpose, we desire to here now expressly state that we did not consider this instrument for any purpose whatever, and that it really has no place in this record.
Motion for rehearing overruled.