Court Opinion

ID: 9834348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:30:28.917615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:13.989554
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In his motion for rehearing the ap-pellee seeks to present an issue not heretofore urged and which we therefore did not discuss in our original opinion. He now asserts there is fundamental error in the record because the appellant Mrs. Flora M. Thurmond, being a married woman, failed to show sufficient grounds to authorize her to institute this suit without the joinder of her husband as a real party, it being asserted that her husband, I. C. Thurmond, was only a party pro forma.
Should there be any merit to appellee’s position the record does not support his contention in this respect. The only pleadings of the appellants appearing in the transcript were an amended original petition and a supplemental petition. In neither of these does the term “pro forma” appear. On the contrary I. C. Thurmond is referred to as a “plaintiff”, and, construing such pleadings as a whole, he appears to be a real party for all purposes necessary for the recovery herein in behalf of Mrs. Thurmond.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.