On Rehearing.
Able counsel for appellee seriously contends that there is no substantial testimony-to justify an issue to be submitted to the jury on the question of bailment, based on an understanding' of the parties to correct a deficiency in the motor operation in appellant’s automobile. In the view we take of this case, it is only proper to here relate the evidence which merely raises the issue, without comment on its weight: A. D. Lockey Jr.’s testimony relates the automo*153bile’s performance in coming from New York to Texas — that it was sluggish; apparently so; had a vapor-lock, that is, ■“when the gasoline boils in the line the motor stops”, and then he testified as follows :
"Q. What did you decide to do with the car after you got here (Texas) ? A. Bring it to Dallas to be fixed * * * .
“Q. When did you bring it to Dallas ■* * *. I mean about when ? A. About June 10th or 11th' * * *.
“Q. After you got here, what did you do with the car? A. Carried it down to Packard-Dallas to be fixed.
“Q. Do you know who you gave it to there ? A. Mr. Bridewell was acting — so I .understood, was acting as service manager.
“Q. Did you explain to him what the trouble was with the car? A. Well, yes.
“Q. How long did he keep it ? A. I forgot. It was part of that day. They didn’-t •or they couldn’t finish it that day, and my 'brother had to go back to Winnsboro, and •so I remained in Dallas and he took the car to Winnsboro and then came back with it, •either the next day or the next.
“Q. The next day or the day after, the •car still wasn’t fixed at that time? A. No.
“Q. What did you do when you got it back in Dallas again? A. Carried it back to Packard-Dallas.
“Q. And turned it over to them? A. Yes. ^
“Q. Did you remain there? A. Oh, two •or three hours, I can’t remember -a lot of that, my memory is hazy * * *
On cross-examination he testified further :
“Q. What did you say to the Packard people that second trip? A. I had the same complaint or rather it hadn’t vapor-locked but the motor was still sluggish and I even suggested that perhaps it was the timing on the car that needed advancing a little * * *.
“Q. Where did they take the car? A. Upstairs.
“Q. And you waited — A. Downstairs.
“Q. You were sitting there waiting? A. At the time they brought it down I was standing there waiting, talking to Mr. Eve-land.
“Q. Isn’t it a fact that you and Mr. Eve-land had already discussed taking that car out on the road and trying it? A. I don’t remember having discussed trying it out * * *
“Q. Had you said anything to anybody about taking the car out? A. However, I did believe they were going to do such a thing”.
The evidence is undisputed that, when the car was driven down from upstairs, Mr. Lockey got into the automobile without invitation from anyone and rode to the place of the accident.
It is our opinion that the above testimony and the testimony related in our original opinion tends, clearly to prove, and is at least sufficient to raise the issue of bailment, based upon the undertaking by the Packard-Dallas Company to correct whatever deficiency in the automobile’s motor operation that was necessary and a reasonable inference that, at the time of the accident, the control and operation of the automobile was under the domination of Mr. Bridewell, the service manager of the Packard-Dallas Company, and that it was being operated by him in furtherance of such bailment; the negligence of the operator, if any, cannot be imputed to Mr. Loc-key.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing is overruled.