Court Opinion

ID: 9527232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:28:43.780758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:39.160408
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
BRADLEY, Judge.
Respondent, in his application for rehearing, says, among other things, that the case should have been remanded rather than rendered. Had the sole basis of the decision been the failure of the proof to support the allegation that the suit was for the benefit of the United States Government, the case would have been remanded, but the decision was also premised on the conclusion that respondent was precluded as a matter of law from recovering on behalf of the U. S. Government the cost of the hospital care furnished to him, for the *374reason that Section 2651, supra, authorizes recovery only in situations creating a tort liability upon a third party. The instant case involved a statutory proceeding that has been denominated as an action ex contractu. Since recovery was sought from a party that was not a tort-feasor, it was the conclusion of this court that the trial court’s judgment was in error as a matter of law, hence the proper procedure was for this court to render judgment, not remand for further proceedings.
Opinion extended.
Application for rehearing overruled.
WRIGHT, P. J., and HOLMES, J., concur.