Texas Harvester Co. v. Wilson-Whaley Co.

On Rehearing.

DUNKLIN, J.

Appellant insists that in view of the testimony of plaihtiff’s president *581and general manager, to &e effect that aboiit November 1, 1914, he discovered that the machines were of no value, it was conclusively shown that' he did not exercise due diligence to discover the fraud practiced upon him in the sale of the machines prior to July, 1915, and that therefore the plea of limitation was conclusively established. As shown in the court’s findings of fact, referred to already in our original opinion, appellee’s manager was wholly unfamiliar with peanut threshers', and…