The opinion
On Rehearing.
In passing upon the twenty-fourth assignment, it was said in the original opinion that there was no error in refusing to submit special issue No. 9, requested by appellant, because there was no attempt to recover, and no recovery allowed for, any damage arising from defective parts. On the motion for rehearing our attention is called to the fact that a recovery was sought by A. T. Celum for such damages. The opinion is here corrected in that particular. Appellant admits, however, that no recovery was allowed for such items. In passing upon the assignment, it may be further remarked that the issue concerned merely á minor evidentiary fact. The issue reads:
“Did A. T. Celum return the defective parts of the auto plow charged for in his Exhibit A to plaintiff as requested in the order for said plow?”
The motion for rehearing has been carefully considered, and the conclusion reached that a correct disposition of the appeal was made in the original opinion, and that the motion should be overruled.
It is so ordered.