Henger v. Smith

In our original opinion we relied on Smith’s testimony referred to in the statement under points numbers one, two and three of Appellant’s Brief as being all of the testimony bearing on the question of whether Westheimer’s men properly covered the hole when they quit work on March 12, 1943. Since the disposition of the case at which we arrived did not require consideration of. appellant’s point No. 17, the testimony of McCullough and Miller referred to in appellee Smith’s 20th counterpoint in reply to appellant’s 17th point escaped our attention. I agreed to the disposition of this case on…