Court Opinion

ID: 9447620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:39:27.755224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:07.253501
License: Public Domain

LEWIS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I can see no justification for further proceedings in this case. The issue, if there actually be one, as to whether or not the fake holdup was the result of a three-way collusion or the result of two separate two-way collusions comes only as a post-trial afterthought of appellant who now seeks to read an ambiguity into its own pleading. The case was carefully pre-tried and subsequently tried upon the issues presented by counsel.1 The instant issue simply was not in the case, understandably so, because appellant alleged the loss to have occurred “by collusion between employees of the Plaintiff, Nancy Gilbert (Scott) and Jo Ann Manning, with one Julio Valentine Ferrer to stage a fake holdup, as a part of a *896scheme between the said parties for embezzlement of the funds of the Plaintiff.” Nor does appellant counsel’s statement made at the trial that Scott denied participation in the fake holdup have present significance. Such statement does not create an ambiguity in the admission but only indicates a desire to withdraw the admission. This request was denied (by failure to grant) by the trial court and the denial was well within the sound discretion of the court. In fact, no abuse ■ef discretion in this regard is claimed.
I would affirm the judgment.

. As indicated by the prevailing opinion, the true issue was whether or not the insurance was in effect. Appellant concedes the correctness of the judgment below on this issue.