Court Opinion

ID: 9671571
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:39:25.635219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:10.715153
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Mr. Lovell complains that we “overlooked” four denials in his testimony that his car by hitting the Marcus car propelled it into appellees’ car found on pages 172, 173, 176, 177, 187 and 188 of the statement of facts.
There is no such denial on page 172. The denial on page 173 is copied in our opinion. On pages 176 and 177 Mr. Lovell stated that his previous testimony was correctly understood and that he reached the “conclusion that the Chrysler automobile did not strike the automobile being driven by Mrs. Stanford after” his car struck the Marcus car because “I had a ring side seat to that show.”
There is no denial on page 187.
The denial on page 188 is quoted in the opinion.
The motions of both appellants for rehearing are overruled.
Motion overruled.