Court Opinion

ID: 9829926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:44:03.86958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:09.009683
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In the statement that there was a cross-aetion filed by the investment company, this court was absolutely correct. There was no statement that it was aimed at or included appellees, as is insisted in the exceedingly; *1054technical and incorrect motion for a rehearing.
If such statement had been made, it was utterly immaterial, as the cross-action was not sustained.
Great stress is placed on a statement, taken from the original petition instead of an amendment thereof, that the suit was for $10,000 and certain lands, while it was for a much larger sum and was for 4,567.94 acres and $40 in rents. In view of the fact that the case was decided against appellees on testimony not connected with the amount of money or land, and error in failing to give a special charge requested by appellants, the objections urged to the opinion on the ground of mistake are wholly vain and futile.
The court differs from appellees as to the sufficiency of testimony to sustain certain positions taken by them and no sufficient reason has been offered for a change in its position.
The motion is without merit, and is overruled.