Court Opinion

ID: 9829763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:36:10.8202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:05.856479
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant, Weinzierl, in his motion for rehearing vigorously assails our sustaining of the trial court’s action in striking from appellant’s answer in the court below, as irrelevant, allegations to the effect that plaintiff (appellee here) incurred certain physician’s and hospital bills totaling $202.50, and at the request of plaintiff, and with the acquiescence of the doctors and hospital defendant, assumed the payment of such bills. Appellant has convinced us that we erred, at least in part, in the reasons we gave for sustaining the trial court’s action in this respect, Appellee has filed no answer to this motion for rehearing, even as he filed no brief on the hearing. Not being enlightened by appellee as to the reason for the court’s action in striking such allegations from appellant’s answer, and being persuaded that we probably erred in the reasons assigned by us in justifying such action, and being disinclined to take more time (at the expense of attention to cases of other litigants who have favored us with briefs) to make the investigation and presentation of law here, which it was the duty of appellee to make, we have decided to grant appellant’s motion for rehearing unless, within ten days from date, appellee shall file a remittitur here sufficiently large to render the court’s action in striking the aforesaid allegations from appellant’s answer harmless error as to appellant. In other words, for the purposes of the remittitur here required, the allegations of appellant’s answer, as to the items making up $202.50, must be taken as true, and the remittitur be in a sum sufficiently large to reduce the judgment to such sum as it should have been, taking as true appellant’s claimed set-off of $202,-50.