Court Opinion

ID: 9664015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:59:45.976984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:00.850862
License: Public Domain

On Application for Rehearing
In their brief in support of appellant’s, application for rehearing counsel for appellant contend that we erroneously refused to consider certain assignments of error-on the basis of their being grouped for argument with other assignments which we concluded were without merit.
Counsel contend that the grouped assignments involved the same or similar propositions of law, and were therefore grouped for argument and should be considered as though separately presented. See The First National Bank of Montgomery v. Sheehan, 220 Ala. 524, 126 So. 409; Southern Ry. Co. v. Cates, 211 Ala. 282, 100 So.356.
In our opinion as to appellant’s sixth specification of error, we stated that such specification was predicated upon assignments of error 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27, which assignments relate to the trial court’s action in sustaining appellee’s demurrer to appellant’s rejoinder number 3.
*91We concluded that assignments 20, 21, 22, 23, and 26, asserting error in overruling the demurrer to rejoinder 3 as an answer to replications 10, 11, 12, 12, and 15, respectively, were without merit since these replications set up matters of estoppel and waiver occurring prior to the fire loss, and rejoinder 3 shows on its face that the non-waiver agreement was made after the fire loss.
Assignments of error 19, 24, 25, and 27 assert error in overruling the demurrer to rejoinder 3 as an answer to replications 4, 13, 14, and 16 respectively.
These replications set up matters of estoppel and waiver resulting from conduct of appellant’s adjuster subsequent to the fire loss, and involve entirely different legal principles from those set up in replications 10, 11, 12, and 15, which set up matters of waiver and estoppel growing out of conduct of appellant’s general agent in dealings with appellee for several years prior to the fire loss in the sale of insurance policies to appellee.
We do not think therefore that the assignments of error were properly grouped for argument since they involve and depend upon different legal principles for their solution, even though in a broad sense all of the assignments do relate to the sustaining of appellee’s demurrer to rejoinder 3.
Regardless, the court overruled the demurrer to rejoinder 4, which counsel for appellant we think correctly characterized in his original brief as being the same in substance as rejoinder 3, except that it averred that the nonwaiver agreement was made and entered into as a part of the transaction or conversation in which the matters and things alleged in the replication occurred, whereas rejoinder 3 alleged the nonwaiver agreement was entered into prior to such happenings.
The issues sought to be presented by appellant’s rejoinder 3 were as fully litigated, and as adequately presented as though the demurrer to rejoinder 3 had been overruled.
All matters, evidential and otherwise, available under rejoinder 3 were thus presented in the proceedings below. Whether this was done on the theory that such matters were available under rej oinder 4 and that there was no substantial difference between rejoinder 3, and rejoinder 4 is of no moment, since clearly no harm resulted to> the appellant by the court’s action in sustaining the demurrer to rejoinder 3. Brasher v. Bromberg, 232 Ala. 450, 168 So. 552; Lambert v. Jefferson (on remandment), 34 Ala.App. 67, at page 79, 36 So.2d 583.
Other matters are argued in appellant’s brief on rehearing. These points have in our opinion been sufficiently covered in our original opinion, and no further discussion is indicated.
Application denied.