Court Opinion

ID: 9679180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:43:38.385709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:11.067680
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION TO REHEAR
The Petition to Rehear indicates considerable displeasure on the part of counsel for Appellant with the *562Opinion of this Court in the aboye captioned case, which Opinion was filed December 6, 1968.
The first complaint in the Petition is that this Court apparently found that defendant Winstead repossessed the automobile in question and disposed of it and that this conclusion is not supported by the evidence. As clearly appears in the Opinion, the observation about repossession, etc. was a recitation of the statements of counsel for defendant in his argument before the Court and set forth in his brief and argument filed herein. We find no error or mistake in commenting on assertions solemnly made to the Court in counsel’s argument and brief. The so-called finding of fact was not determinative of the issues in this case but was mentioned as shedding light on some unanswered questions concerning Winstead’s conduct and his relation to the subject matter and some inferences to be drawn from admitted facts.
The second matter complained of is the assertion in the Opinion that “defendants showed the automobile to complainant”, whereas, the proof was to the effect that it was shown to complainant by defendants Beard and Wiggins and not by defendant Winstead.
A casual reading of the Opinion of this Court clearly shows that the allegations of the original bill were being referred to and that the defendants mentioned were Beard and Wiggins and not Winstead. No question is made in the pleadings or proof about the fact that Beard and Wiggins sold the car to complainant and that he had no conversations or personal contact with Winstead. We find no confusion in the Opinion about this fact and no occasion for any misunderstanding concerning it.
There is no substance in Petitioner’s argument relative to the observation in the Chancellor’s Memorandum that *563the Answer was not sworn to and that he and this Court may have predicated their conclusions on this fact.
The Chancellor did find that the Answer filed by Win-stead “* * * is not only evasive and not responsive to the pleadings, but is merely an attempt to wash his hands of the entire deal, ’ ’ and we agreed with this conclusion.
As to the complaint in Section VII of the Petition, we stand by the assertion in Our Opinion that ‘ ‘ Since there is no claim that the automobile had been stolen, it is obvious that the keys to the automobile and possession of it came from the defendant, Winstead.” There is no other reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the uncon-troverted facts in the record.
All questions raised by the Petition to Rehear have been considered and found to be without merit, hence, said Petition is overruled.