Court Opinion

ID: 9829872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:41:42.917984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:08.046115
License: Public Domain

On Motions for Rehearing.
In our original opinion this was said: “Appellee, G. M. Bullard, testified without contradiction that he and his wife, appel-lee, Mrs. Gertrude M. Bullard, were separated and not now living together.”
 As pointed out by appellees in their motion for rehearing, that statement was without sufficient support in the testimony of plaintiff G. M. Bullard, and it is accordingly withdrawn. However, as pointed out, the award of compensation was made to the husband and wife in separate amounts, to be paid to each separately from the other, with no objection thereto by the husband. And since the necessity of a lump sum settlement with the husband was for the award to him only, and did not involve the award to his wife, and there being no testimony of facts to show her right to a lump sum settlement of the award to her, also, we adhere to the conclusion reached on original hearing, that the court erred in submission of the issue of her right to a lump sum settlement of the award to her. Her right to that relief is derived from the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 8306 et seq., and she had the burden of establishing it in accordance with its provisions.
The motions for rehearing by both plaintiff in error and defendants in error are overruled.