Court Opinion

ID: 9834306
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:28:19.088133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:13.312773
License: Public Domain

On Motions for Rehearing.
Both parties have filed motions for rehearing in this cause.
In its motion for rehearing appellant makes the unqualified statement that appel-lee did not marry the deceased employee until October 2, 1937, following the accident which occurred on December 11, 1936, and appellee makes no denial. We therefore find’such fact to be as so stated. We withdraw our holding to the effect that ap-pellee was a 'party at interest in the suit brought by her husband (the deceased employee). However, notwithstanding such withdrawal, for the other reasons stated by us in our former opinion it was not error to admit the. testimony of the deceased employee given in the suit which he had brought for himself. Appellant’s motion for rehearing will be refused.
We have also carefully considered ap-pellee’s motion for rehearing and finding no merit therein the same will also be refused.
Motions of appellant and appellee for rehearing refused.