Court Opinion

ID: 9659013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:26:33.567593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:02.984071
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
HEFLIN, Chief Justice.
On rehearing the thrust of Mutual Savings’ new argument is that only four of the justices were in favor of affirmance since only four held for the beneficiary on the entire opinion. It is argued that four justices were in favor of reversal, since one dissented altogether, two dissented as to “lapsation” and one dissented as to insurable interest. Thus the claim is that there was a 4-4 split which would dictate reliance upon Title 13, Section 15, Code of Alabama, 1940, as amended (Recompiled 1958 — 1971 Cumulative Pocket Parts), which provides for the appointment of a special judge by the Governor, to settle the issue. This court does not agree with the position of Mutual Savings on this point.
In the case of Montgomery Light & Water Power Co. v. Thombs, 204 Ala. 678, 87 So. 205 (1920), Justice Brown, writing for this court, said:
“Anderson, C. J., concurs with the writer in holding that the demurrer should have been sustained to count 2 of the complaint. McClellan, J., holds that the overruling of the demurrer to said count 2 was error, but thinks that it was error without injury in view of the fact that the first count was sufficient to present all the issues, and the evidence was without dispute that the defendant was using its wires in the conveyance of a deadly current of electricity. Sayre, Somerville, Gardner, and Thomas, JJ., constituting a majority, hold that the second count was not subject to the demurrers, and that they were properly overruled.
“Sayre and Gardner, JJ., think that the trial court erred in not granting a new trial because of the improper argument of counsel. Anderson, C. J., and McClellan, Somerville, Thomas, and Brown, JJ., are of the opinion that the trial court was not in error in this respect.
“The result is that a majority of the court do not concur as to reversible error in any one of the points assigned and argued, and it must result in an affirmance of the cause. Cook v. Drew, 3 Stew. & P. 392; 3 Cyc. note 89, p. 405; Shollenberger v. Brinton, 52 Pa. 9-100; Browning v. State, 33 Miss. 47.
“The judgment of the circuit court will therefore be affirmed.”
Opinion extended. Application for rehearing overruled.
MERRILL, HARWOOD, MADDOX, McCALL, JONES and FAULKNER, JJ., concur in overruling the application for rehearing on the Title 13, Section 15 issue; however, MERRILL, MADDOX, and FAULKNER, JJ., concur in overruling the application for rehearing on all issues.
HARWOOD and McCALL, JJ., would grant the rehearing only on the “lapsation” feature of the original opinion.
JONES, J., would grant the rehearing only on the “insurable interest” feature of the original opinion.
COLEMAN, J., would grant the rehearing and dissents.