Tinsley v. McIlhenny , 30 Tex. Civ. App. 352 ( 1902 )

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

In our opinion filed in this case on the 10th day of November, 1902, we stated as a conclusion of fact that the balance due on the judgment in favor of the bank had been paid or secured to be paid by Masterson. We find that this conclusion is not sustained by the evidence. Master-son testified that it had all been paid but a small amount, but there is no evidence that the unpaid -balance" had been secured in any way by Masterson. We make this correction at the request of plaintiffs in error, though we do not regard the finding as at all material. The judgment in favor of the bank was against Masterson, and he, being liable therefor, could recover under his contract with plaintiffs in error the amount due thereon without showing that he had paid or secured the payment of the judgment.

Overruled.

Writ of error refused.