Court Opinion

ID: 9743132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:26:21.981005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:39.589290
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Royse, C. J.
In her petition for rehearing appellant says we erred in our original opinion when we *424said: “This being an appeal from a negative decision, the first specification of the motion for a new trial presents no question,” because she asserts the decision of the trial court is based on an affirmative paragraph of defense.
In the original briefs filed in this cause, the appellees, as Proposition I, Point A, said:
“An assignment in the motion for new trial that the decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence raised no question for the determination of this court where, as here, the appellant was an unsuccessful plaintiff below, and the decision appealed from is, as to him, a negative decision.
“Therefore, no question is raised by this assignment.” (Citing authorities).
In her reply brief, in answer to this contention of appellees, appellant said:
“We do not disagree with the proposition of law cited under Point A of Proposition I of Appellees’ brief, but say that this rule of law does not apply to a case where the facts have been found specially under the statutory procedure, in which special finding of facts there appears a finding of fact that is not sustained by the evidence.” (Citing no authorities).
Nowhere in her original briefs did appellant make the contention she now makes in reference to the first specification of her motion for a new trial. In our original opinion we decided this matter on the question raised by the parties in their briefs. Therefore, we are of the opinion that, while the rule we announced in the original opinion does not apply where the decision of the trial court is based on an affirmative paragraph of answer, appellant, by her failure to raise that question in her reply brief, waived it.
*425On the last page of our original opinion, in holding the decision of the trial court was not contrary to law, we said: “We are of the opinion that the evidence herein does not entitle appellant to any relief.” After a re-examination of the record in this case we adhere to that statement.
Other questions raised by the petition for rehearing were adequately covered in the original opinion.
Petition for rehearing denied.
Draper, J., not participating.
Note. — Reported in 92 N. E. 2d 867.