Court Opinion

ID: 9645064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:11:46.159244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:22.602813
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
If we understand appellant’s motion for rehearing he takes the position that in our opinion we accepted as evidence a statement in appellees’ brief to the effect that the real party in interest in the Cormier case was an' insurance company and not Cormier as reflected by the case style. It is difficult for us to follow such reasoning but if our statement is so interpreted we hasten to correct it. In drawing the analogy between that case and ours we merely made the observation that such statement was made in appellees’ brief without challenge either in reply brief or in oral argument. That is a correct statement and we stand on it, though we are not considering such statement as constituting evidence. The Cormier case is well reasoned; we consider it more analogous to ours on the facts than is either the Watson case or Nelson case and prefer the so-called majority view on the question here involved. We do not consider the case of Davis v. Cayton, 214 S.W.2d 801 by our court, urged by appellant, as any authority for the question being here considered. The motion for rehearing is overruled.