On ■ Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees present a very voluminous and insistent motion for rehearing. Its length precludes any extended notice. We can only ■say that the motion has been carefully examined, and we can but think, as expressed in our original opinion, that the court erred in sustaining the general demurrer to appellant’s petition. To the authorities cited in our original opinion we wish to add the case of Booker-Jones Oil Co. v. National Refining Co., 63 Tex. Civ. App. 142, 131 S. W. 623, 132 S. W. 815. We refer to this, case and to the authorities therein cited as supporting the effect given by us in our original opinion to the term “general manager.”
We think the motion for rehearing must he overruled, and it is so ordered.