Court Opinion

ID: 9868327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:29:48.904086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:49.568942
License: Public Domain

ON PktitioN to Rehear.
A petition to rehear is presented in which it is charged that, “The Court in its opinion erroneously stated the facts of the case, and clearly indicated that it did not know the status of Appellees in the litigation.” The petition then quotes a paragraph from the opinion beginning with the words,‘‘ So that we think it clear that the decree in the ease before us,” etc., and curtly comments: *658“This finding is untrue. ” Despite tlie discourtesy of this callow comment, the Court, in the interest of justice, responds briefly to this petition.
It should be obvious to counsel representing petitioner that in the paragraph quoted, this Court was referring to and considering the question presented to this Court on appeal as to whether or not there were errors apparent on the face of the decree entered in Cause No. 41381 on the 12th day of August, 1940, which was “the decree sought to be reviewed herein.” In the opening part of our opinion, we quoted from the reply brief of appellees their full statement of the question presented to this Court, and which was passed upon, by which we think it is made to appear, as remarked in our opinion, that there was brought before us for determination “the single question of whether or not the decreé (of August 12th, 1940) should be reviewed and revised for error apparent, on the face of the pleadings and decree.” In the petition for a rehearing now before us, counsel apparently complain that this Court “did not decide nor consider whether B. B. Fair was estopped to assert this claim against these third parties and subsequent purchasers,” and say that, ‘ ‘ This question was properly raised by the demurrer which was sustained. ’ ’
In the first place, this Court was fully justified in confining its opinion to a discussion of what the brief of counsel for appellees, as before indicated, submitted for determination, — the question of law as to whether or not' “the Chancery Court was without authority to declare' a deed void and to cancel it and to divest title,” etc., as it undertook to do on the grounds set forth in the pleadings and decree of August 12th, 1940, which question' was raised by demurrer to the bill of review and "which demurrer was sustained by the Chancellor.
*659In the second place, we do not understand that any question of subsequent or innocent purchaser was, or could properly have been, before this Court in the state of the record. Conceding that one of the numerous grounds of demurrer was “because the bill on its face shows that E. J. Curry and Pauline Curry, individually and as Trustees, were innocent purchasers for value,” we do not understand the Chancellor to‘ have sustained the demurrer on this ground, and it is apparent that he could hot consistently have done so. The bill challenged by the demurrer made no such statement or concession, but directly to the contrary, and on demurrer its allegations of fact are admitted to be true. This defense on the part of the Currys was set up in their answer, but this answer was not before this Court and its allegations could not, of course, be considered.
Upon reconsideration of the case, the Court is satisfied with and reaffirms its holding with respect to the invalidity of the decree challenged by the bill of review. The case goes back to the Chancery Court with this holding on this question as the established law of the case. The rights of the Currys, as alleged subsequent and innocent purchasers, are for determination by the Chancellor upon proof and such further proceedings as may be proper. This Court expresses no opinion on the question ‘whether or not the Currys can show themselves to be entitled to rights as such in the face of the outstanding-registered title vested in the Fairs by the deed erroneously cancelled and set aside by the decree of August 12, 1940.
The decree of this Court reversing that of the Chancellor and remanding the cause for further proceedings is reaffirmed. The petition to rehear is dismissed.