
    TEXAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY v. Iona CULWELL et al.
    Motions Nos. 9488, 9489; No. 1199—5549.
    Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.
    April 1, 1931.
    For former opinion, see 34 S.W.(2d) 820, which reversed 19 S.W.(2d) 816.
    Beall, Worsham, Rollins, Burford & Ry-burn and A. S. Rollins, all of Dallas, and J. L. Gammon, of Waxahachie, for plaintiff in error.
    H. S. Beard, of Waxahachie, and .Miller & Price, of Waco, for defendants in error.
   LBDDY, J.

Both parties have filed motions for rehearing which have been given careful consideration. We have not been convinced that the questions discussed in the original opinion were not correctly decided.

Plaintiff in error insists in its motion that we should reform the judgment reversing and remanding the cause for another trial so as to affirm it- as to the father and mother of the deceased, against whom judgment was rendered in the trial court. This insistence must be sustained, as these parties did not appeal from the judgment rendered against them.

We recommend that defendants in error’s motion for rehearing be overruled, and that plaintiff in error’s motion be granted to the extent that the judgment heretofore rendered by us be reformed so as to affirm the judgment of the trial court as to S. L. Culwell and his wife, Mrs. S. L. Culwell. In all other respects plaintiff in error’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

CURETON, C. J.

The motion for rehearing by defendants in error' is oVerruled, and plaintiff in error’s motion is granted to the extent of reforming the judgment so as to affirm the judgment of the trial court in part as recommended by the Commission of Appeals, and otherwise overruled.  