Court Opinion

ID: 9831824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:23:50.350556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:38.358068
License: Public Domain

On Biotion for Rehearing.
In our original opinion we were in error in saying that Mrs. Monahan was the sister of Dan Gamier. Another inaccuracy was in the statement, occurring in one portion of the opinion, that all the communications between Cravens & Cage and Parde & Co. were through the medium of correspondence. The first communication between them was a request by Parde & Co. over the long-distance telephone that Cravens & Cage send a blank application for the insurance in controversy. That request was mentioned in another portion of the opinion, but the evidence failed to show that this conversation amounted to anything more than such a request and the promise to comply therewith.
While Prank Parde did' testify, as insisted by appellee, that prior to the negotiations for the insurance in controversy, Cravens & Cage had appointed him agent for another company, the Mercantile Pire Insurance Company, yet he further testified that hd¡ never procured from the commissioner of insurance of the state any authority to act as such agent, and that the dealings of Parde & Co. with Cravens & Cage were confined solely to the policy in controversy in the present suit.
The foregoing inaccuracies have no substantial bearing upon any material issues in the case, but they are corrected in view of the fact that appellee has stressed them in his motion for rehearing, and, with such corrections, the motion is overruled. ■