Court Opinion

ID: 9832614
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:02:55.851662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:49.434567
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING.
Appellant in its motion for rehearing complains of the language used in the third paragraph of the opinion discussing the fourth, fifth, and seventh assignments of error. It is insisted that the court holds therein that part of the interrogatory therein quoted was an admission of the injury, and that such holding was error. We did not so hold. The use of the word “admission” in the last sentence of the discussion is somewhat misleading. The word “statement” should have been used instead of “admission.” While we did not hold, and do not now, that the statements in the interrogatory amounted to an admission of the injury, yet they, in connection with the other matters set forth in the opinion, were in evidence and the jury might well infer therefrom that the issue as to whether Hunter had sustained an injury was not seriously contested by the defendant, appellant here. The record shows that the sharp *496contention in the trial court was that the death of Hunter did not result from an injury, but from rheumatism.
We have deemed it proper to make these remarks to prevent any misconception in our holding as to the effect of the statements contained in said interrogatory.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Overruled.

Writ of error refused.