Court Opinion

ID: 9828342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:18:52.459769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:45.207729
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
[5] We are in error in stating that no bill of exception appears under the fifth and sixth assignments; it does appear in the statement of facts. The assignments, though, should be overruled, for the error, if any, in admitting the receiver’s report was harmless, because according to the record appellant itself also offered the same report in evidence. The record here shows “the St. Louis Union Trust Co. next offered in evidence the following report of the Receiver C. L. Taylor, and is in words and figures as follows:” (Here follows the report.)
[6,7] We are requested to state conclusions of fact in respect to the claims of J. M. Langford and the Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway Company. It was the contention in the brief, as in this motion, that the evidence is insufficient to support the claims. We were of the opinion, as now, that the first assignment, which is the one relied upon, would not authorize us to consider such objections to those and other claims. The assignment confines the objections to the allowance of 25 cents per day for car rentals. The Langford claim is not for car rental, but a claim for damages growing out of a freight shipment, and clearly, we think, not within the objections of the assignment. The claim of the railway mentioned is based on a final judgment rendered by the county court against the receiver, and not appealed from. Even if this *348claim be witbin the assignment, tbe judgment itself was sucb sufficient proof of its correctness of amount as to authorize the court to pass and classify it, and the objection that there was no evidence to support the correctness of the amount could not be sustained.
The motion is in all things overruled.