Court Opinion

ID: 9830738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:25:38.222049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:26.134138
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[3, 4] The statement in the opinion that it appeared from the allegations in his pleadings that appellee’s suit “was not on the policy, but on a parol contract,” is inaccurate. The allegations in the petition authorized proof of either a written or an oral undertaking bn the part of appellant to insure appellee against loss by the destruction of his storehouse and stock of goods by fire. But the fact that the petition should be so construed did not subject it to the objections urged in the assignments attacking it, and therefore the disposition made by us of those assignments was not erroneous. If the sufficiency of the petition should be tested by the proof adduced by appellee instead of by the allegations therein, appellant’s contention that it did not state a cause of action, because it did not show a compliance with conditions precedent to appellee’s right to maintain a suit, contained in the contract proved, doubtless should be sustained. But, as we understand it, whether a petition in a given case states a cause of action or not is to be determined by the allegations in it, and without reference to testimony adduced in support of it.. Whether on the testimony adduced the plaintiff under his allegations was entitled to- judgment or not is another question, and one not raised by the assignments, as we construe them.
The motion is overruled.