Court Opinion

ID: 9833251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:33:54.999515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:00.926372
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant especially argues that it was error to overrule the third and fourth assignments, which were grouped. We still think, as before, that the two assignments mentioned can only properly he construed as presenting for our- determination the one point that the judgment is excessive to the extent of the amount expended by appellee in overhauling inferior work done by the contractor upon the ground that the proof established estoppel by negligence in supervising the work against appellee. This assumes, as we undertook to say before, that the proof so conclusively established estoppel by negligence as to require us to say, as a matter of law, that estoppel by negligence against appellee in supervision of the work of the contractor existed and should be applied. We still think we would not be warranted in so holding, as a matter of law, and that the finding of fact in that respect, as involved in the judgment of the court, would be binding on us. As we could not say, as a matter of law, that estoppel by negligence in supervising the work of the contractor was established against appellee, then we feel constrained to rule, as before, that the judgment could not be held excessive upon the ground of the assignment.
The motion is overruled.