On Motion for Rehearing.
[6] Appellees, in their motion for rehearing, insist that we erred in not affirming the judgment and in reversing and remanding it upon the authority of Wynne v. State National Bank, 82 Tex. 378, 17 S. W. 918. We hat'e carefully reviewed the record and the authorities, and have concluded that this contention is sound, and should be sustained. The judgment of the trial court sustaining the exceptions is general in its language, and there is no indication upon’what ground the general demurrer was really sustained, as was done in the Wynne Case, supra. This being the state of the record, and believing that the general demurrer was correctly sustained by the trial judge, and in the original opinion, this court having approved the action of the trial judge, it becomes our duty to affirm the judgment. We are sustained in such holding by the following cases: Jennings v. Moss, 4 Tex. 452; Sneed v. Moodie, 24 Tex. 159; Colbertson v. Beeson, 30 Tex. 76; Seligson & Co. v. Hobby & Post, 51 Tex. 147; Bomar v. Parker, 68 Tex. 435, 4 S. W. 599; International Order of T. K. & D. of T. v. Denman, 160 S. W. 980.
The motion for rehearing is granted and the judgment affirmed.