Court Opinion

ID: 9833460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:44:38.789177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:03.251192
License: Public Domain

On Motions for Rehearing
Both sides have filed respective motions for rehearing upon the judgment and opinion of this court entered herein on March 8, 1945.
They have been given careful consideration, with the result hereinafter indicated:
(1)After re-examination of the record and statement of facts, it is determined that the first three grounds of appellant’s motion, as thus on immaterial features edited and condensed, are well taken and should be sustained, to-wit:
“I. The Court erred in reversing and remanding fqr a new trial the issue involving the Joe D. Hughes claim, which was found by the jury in favor of appellant, and concerning which no complaint is made in this appeal by appellee.
“II. The Court erred in reversing and remanding for a new trial all other separate claims, or issues, found by the trial court in favor of appellant, and of which no complaint is made on this appeal.
“III. The Court erred in reversing and remanding the judgment on the issue of ‘district expenses’, based on the jury’s finding in appellant’s favor, and complained of in appellee’s Second Cross-Assignment of Error.”
In other words, such re-examination has failed to disclose any lack of support for the recited findings of either the court or the jury in favor of the appellant upon any of the claims referred to in these quoted grounds, the first and third being those of the jury, and the second that of the court.
Appellee has made no complaint here against Nos. 1 and 2, but has presented its “second cross-assignment” against No. 3.
As further concerns the third of these claims, so involving such designated “district expenses”, it had formerly been considered in so far only as it was affected by this court’s ruling on the question of limitation ; having now, however, been reviewed, as indicated, on whether the jury’s finding for the appellant thereon was supported by the evidence, the conclusion is reached that it was, irrespective of the question of limitation.
(2) The effect of this holding necessarily is to overrule the appellee’s “Second Cross-Assignment of Error” herein, which is accordingly done, inclusive of all that part of its motion for rehearing of March 22, 1945, which deals with and interposes that cross-assignment.
(3) Appellant’s fourth and last ground in its present motion, which urges that the first cross-assignment of the appellee on this appeal, having to do with the latter’s claim for 2% tank-table strappage deductions by the pipeline company running the oil for other years than 1929, should likewise be overruled without regard to the issue of limitation, on the asserted ground that appellant has already shown a good *324defense to all of that claim regardless of the statute of limitation, is also sustained. In the first place, the question raised by. appellee under such cross-assignment is practically the same as that involved in its stated second assignment, the only practical difference between them being that the issue it tendered in this first assignment was that of “Tank Table Strappage Deductions”, while its second one, supra, related to “District Expenses”. The trial court overruled this claim also, on the facts and the law, and it is concluded that the appellee has pointed out no reversible ground against that holding so adverse to it.
Without extending this opinion further, for clarity, the holdings made upon this rehearing may be thus summarized:
This court’s judgment and opinion of March 8, 1945, granting the appellee’s motion to enter a final judgment herein, in substance, are now so changed, amended, and reiterated, as to:
(1) Affirm the judgment of the court below, on all issues determined by it in appellant’s favor, and of which no complaint has been made here by the appel-lee; (2) reiterate the holdings of March 8, 1945, numbered (1) and (2) on pages 3 and 4 of that opinion, respectively, adjudging $73,260.45 of the sued-upon claims barred by limitation and $2,690.47 thereof not shown to have been barred; (3) determine the issues presented by appellee’s first and second cross-assignments of error adversely to it, and affirm the judgment of the court below thereon; (4) remand the cause to the trial court for another trial only upon the issues, or claims of, “(a) Profit made by the appellant on fresh water, (b) Manufacturer’s profit on Breaxit and Lubricating Oil, (c) Profits on trucks and tractors, and (d)_ Transporting second-hand material.”
That the appellee’s motion No. 13245, except as otherwise herein recited, be overruled, especially as to its cross-assignments of error Nos. 1 and 2.
It will be so ordered.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing granted in part and judgment ordered reformed accordingly.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing refused.