Court Opinion

ID: 9816506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 03:13:32.538455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:00.410680
License: Public Domain

ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING
No. 518.
Decided April 2, 1951.
By THE COURT:
Submitted on application of plaintiff-appellee for rehearing. While our rules do not provide for the filing- of an application for rehearing this Court has nevertheless considered the application and finds no new question raised.
Exception is taken to the statement in the opinion that the trial court, recognized the validity of the assignment in the order of distribution. The record shows without question that the trial court in the order of distribution recognized the assignment as between the parties thereto. As against other parties the question of consideration could have been put in issue. The trial court very properly held that no evidence was presented on the matter of consideration for the assignment. Apparently it was assumed that since the as*227signee offered no testimony on the question of consideration the assignment was not valid against other creditors of the. assignor. It is at this point where this Court differs from the trial court. This Court in its opinion applied the principle of law that where the assignment is absolute and states that it is for a valuable consideration, until the contrary is shown, it will be presumed to be upon a sufficient consideration. This principle of law was not applied by the trial court, but should have been and is controlling in the determination of the issue presented.
Application denied.
HORNBECK, PJ, WISEMAN and MILLER, JJ, concur.