Court Opinion

ID: 9825650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:52:24.875866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:14.881563
License: Public Domain

Robins, J., on rehearing. A careful re-examination of the record convinces us that appellees’ contention that the proof in this case does not justify a finding that appellant was entitled to the household goods described in the complaint must be sustained in part. "While all the household goods for which appellant sued were particularly described in the will of Mrs. Cornelia Wilson Tucker, mother of appellant, appellant’s allegation that her mother owned this personal property was denied by appellees in their answer. Thus the burden of proving that this property belonged to appellant’s mother was cast upon appellant. The only testimony supporting appellant’s claim to the household goods is contained in the following portion of appellant’s deposition: “To the best of my knowledge it (the personal property) was all hers; because I know that Mr. Tucker gave her the Frigidaire for her birthday, and the bedroom suite in the front bedroom, which was bought after her marriage to Mr. Tucker, was paid for partly by trading in some of her old furniture.” It thus appears that the only articles which appellant identified and showed to have been owned by her mother were the one suite of furniture and the Frigidaire. As to the other articles of household goods there is no evidence to prove that appellant’s mother ever owned them. This testimony of appellant was not specifically contradicted. So we conclude that our former opinion and judgment should be so modified as to vest in appellant title to the real estate involved and to the bedroom suite in the front bedroom and the Frigidaire, subject to the provisions of our former opinion as to improvements, taxes and rents and the rights of the administrator of the estate of Cordelia Wilson Tucker. In all other respects the petition for rehearing is denied.