On Motion for Rehearing.
On the motion for rehearing our attention has been called to the fact that appellant in its original answer admitted that the judgment in controversy was based upon the defective citations offered in evidence. This fact had been noticed upon original consideration, but -we overlooked the fact that appellant’s general denial, part of the same answer, was a qualified one. In our original opinion we proceeded upon the theory that the service upon which the judgment rested had been put-in issue by the general denial, notwithstanding the admission in the special answer; but, as stated, we find the general denial qualified in such way as to give effect to the admission in appellant’s answer. We therefore were in error in reversing the judgment on the ground that the evidence of a want of service failed to justify the peremptory instruction. This, however, we think is immaterial in view of the second ground upon which the reversal of the judgment was predicated as to the necessity of appellee firm showing that they had a valid defense to the judgment, as announced in our original opinion. We see no reason to change the conclusion there announced.
The motion for rehearing is accordingly overruled.