Court Opinion

ID: 9828891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:49:28.892234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:54.105574
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We have earefujly considered appellee’s motion for rehearing and to certify, but, as we think, find no sufficient reason to modify or change our conclusion on the legal questions discussed in our original opinion. Ap-pellee, however, insists that we did not give the intended effect to the agreement on the trial below, copied in our original opinion, •relating to the insanity of Goldie White. Relating to this subject, appellee has this to say:
“We believe the court erred in construing the stipulation of counsel with reference to the matter of Goldie White, the slayer of the assured Myers, being insane at the time she killed assured.
“We believe the court erred in the respect above stated. But if not, then a just consideration for the appellant, as well as a due regard for our own agreement, freely made, impels us to say that it was agreed, or at least so intended in the trial court, that Goldie White was insane before and at the very time she killed assured. To remove that matter from controversy here and in line with the agreement actually made between the waiter and appellant’s counsel, we here agree that said Goldie White was insane before and at the very time she killed Myers.”
Accepting and adopting the admission now so made, we conclude, for reasons stated in our original opinion, that in addition to the $3,000 awarded appellant that she should have the further sum of $3,000 by virtue of *224the double indemnity clause of the policy declared upon, together with 12 per cent, damages allowed by our statutes of $6,000, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from and after the 29th day of October, 1923, and our original judgment will be reformed so as to so show, and as so reformed the judgment will be rendered in appellant’s favor.
We see no reason for certifying this ease that does not apply in many others in which writs of error are available and which we have refused to certify for reasons deemed sufficient, and we hence overrule not only 'the motion for rehearing, but also the motion to certify.