The opinion
ON REHEARING
On December 29, 1975 appellant filed with this court a petition for rehearing. The ground relied on in the petition is that, according to appellant, the short passage of testimony quoted in our main opinion was (1) taken out of context and (2) did not concern the parcel of property in dispute. Appellant requests that this court set out in its opinion on rehearing an amplified rendition of the quote from the trial record.
To meet appellant’s request, the following quotation from the record is made:
“Q. And all the real estate he had in Mobile was in your joint names ?
“A. As far as I know.
“Q. And all of this went into the joint finances ?
“A. That’s right.
“Q. And Mr. West’s parents died fairly recently ?
“A. Mr. West died two years ago and Mrs. West died eight years ago.
“Q. And Mr. West inherited various items from them ?
“A. Yes, I guess he did.
“Q. As far as you know, any real estate he may have inherited was in his name only ?
“A. I don’t know.
“Q. As far you know, none of it is in your name ?
“A. I really don’t know.
“Q. But there were other assets that came into the family from them, personal property, cash, and so forth, was there not?
“A. I don’t know.
*332 “Q. Now, do you know how much your husband made last year in terms of dollars and cents ?
“A. No sir, I surely do not.
“Q. Did you sign income tax returns ?
“A. Yes.
“Q. And you didn’t look at it at the time you signed it ?
“A. I wouldn’t know what it said if I looked at it. I have never filled one out. All I do is sign where it tells you to.
(R 50)
“Q. You and he didn’t discuss the possibility of moving to Tuscaloosa ?
“A. No.
“Q. Is it not a fact that you told him in no uncertain terms that I’m through and that you would not move to Tuscaloosa ?
“A. That is not true.
“Q. Now, his parents were from Tuscaloosa, weren’t they?
“A. That’s correct.
“Q. He has a brother in business there ?
“A. Yes.
“Q. And he owns property in Tuscaloosa ?
“A. Who?
“Q. Your husband.
“A. Yes.
“Q. This is family property that he inherited ?
“A. Mr. Friedlander, I suppose that it is. I don’t know anything about what he owns. The only thing I know about is I signed something with Mr. West on some property in Tuscaloosa for a shopping center. I had to sign my name on something about a shopping center in Tuscaloosa.”
(R 51, 52)
The expanded quotation is somewhat lengthier than what was requested by appellant. The additional inclusions are made to obviate any further possible misunderstanding as to the scope of the testimony relating to the property in question. Furthermore, to allay any question as to the scope of this court’s review on original submission, we wish to say that we read and considered the entire record before our main opinion was rendered; and, the inclusion of the lengthened quotation is not to be construed as a reconsideration of any aspect of that opinion: rather it is to be taken as a sincere effort on the part of this court to accurately and adequately set out the facts on which this court based its decision.
Appellant’s second contention is that the passage does not refer to the disputed parcel. We cannot agree. We are convinced that the quoted passage of testimony referred to the disputed tract and suggest that appellant was so convinced on original submission, for his brief filed here on July 31, 1975 at page eight unequivocally states that the passage refers “to the Tuscaloosa property in question (shopping center).”
Opinion extended; application for rehearing overruled.
WRIGHT, P. J., and HOLMES, J., concur.