Court Opinion

ID: 9681203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:45:59.840496+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:32.630011
License: Public Domain

McAmis, Presiding Judge
(concurring).
I fully concur in the denial of the writ of mandamus. On the merits, I wish to add as an additional ground of concurrence, the following:
Since the case must be decided on the technical record, we must conclusively presume that every issue under the pleadings was determined on sufficient evidence in favor of Mrs. Holcomb. One issue was whether the medical bills incurred in treating her injuries exceeded the recovery, in which case, under the terms of the contract, that was nothing due as attorney’s fees.
The record shows that this issue was withdrawn from the jury’s consideration “by consent”. There is no showing or suggestion, however, that this defense of Mrs. *722Holcomb was withdrawn or waived. On appeal in error the presumption is that the judgment is correct and this presumption extends to every defense admissible under thé pleadings. It must, therefore, be presumed that the parties “by consent” left this issue to the determination of the trial judge and that he determined it in favor of Mrs. Holcomb. In the absence of a bill of exceptions it must be conclusively presumed that his conclusion, on this issue of fact is correct. Fletcher v. Russell, 28 Tenn. App. 44, 177 S. W. (2d) 854.
In this view of the case the question of res judicata need not be determined.