Court Opinion

ID: 9831029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:43:29.356309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:29.642115
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Defendant in error in her motion for rehearing contends that we were in error because she claims she alleged that she was the “sole dependent of Jack Alessandro under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Laws of Texas,” arid that, since the Workmen’s Compensation Act is an act of exclusion, said pleadings would thereby exclude any dependent unless they came under or within the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
We have carefully re-read the pleadings of defendant in error, and do not find such allegation in her pleadings. In our original opinion, we copied all of her allegations that we could find bearing on said question; we do not think said pleadings could be construed as alleging that defendant in error is the sole dependent of Jack Alessandro under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Her pleading was that she was his sole dependent; she did not attempt to limit same to “under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.”
We have carefully re-examined the record and authorities, and the motion for rehearing is .overruled.