Court Opinion

ID: 9834332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:29:35.390685+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:13.862425
License: Public Domain

Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing.
Appellants contend that we were misled by the language of their motion to strike, out certain deeds (considered under assignments 1 to 12) into believing that the original Spanish instrument, or a copy thereof, had been admitted in evidence without objection, whereas in fact the copy, or purported copy, was admitted only as a part of the so-called partition deed. We find that the statement of facts is not clear on this point; apparently what was admitted in evidence was a translation of the Spanish instrument attached to the “partition deed,” as corrected by the witness Vela upon a comparison thereof with a *339record at Camargo, the corrections being of small consequence. While it was admitted in connection with the so-called “partition deed,” it appears, also, to have been corrected so as to make it an examined copy of said record. Many of the propositions under these assignments are directed against the admission of said copy in evidence; but they are not germane to the assignments, and cannot be considered because such assignments complain of the overruling of a motion to strike out of evidence six other deeds. We find no assignment attacking the admission of Vela’s testimony, or the admission of the copy which he testifies is correct according to his examination and comparison, but only assignments complaining of the admission of the so-called “partition deed,” under which we find only one proposition referring to said copy, which reads, “It is impossible to confirm a void instrument;” and under this is a statement showing that the Spanish instrument was not offered as a copy of the Hidalgo county records. If it was not offered as a copy of the Hidalgo county records, ■it was evidently offered independent of the “partition deed,” as that was a certified copy from the records of Hidalgo county, and the Spanish instrument attacked was also copied from said records.
We find no assignment under which we feel authorized to pass upon the admissibility of the copy of the Spanish instrument, and the motion being to exclude deeds, some of which were held admissible under assignments 38, 39, 44 to 48, 49, and ”50, we are still of the opinion the motion was properly overruled.
Appellants in their brief, and'also in the motion for rehearing, vigorously, assail the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury; yet there' is no assignment which attacks the same in any other particular than that the 'suit was. for the three leagues (less 2,000' or 3,000 acres), and proof had béen offered by defendants to only about 3,000 acres. We considered that assignment (No. 100), but did not construe it as sufficient to raise the issue of no title at ail in the defendants, but merely as asserting the contention that plaintiffs were entitled to recover all the land except that to which the defendants had deeds. This construction is fully borne out by the statement and argument.
We overrule the appellants’ motion for rehearing, also that of appellees.