Court Opinion

ID: 9830648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:21:11.34864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:25.203192
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
While ai>pellant has seen fit to call the instrument under consideration an “application for rehearing,” it might with more propriety and accuracy be denominated “an arraignment of the Court of Civil Appeals” for failing to render an opinion in favor of appellant, The same recklessness shown in designating the paper by a name unknown to the statute is carried through its entire motion in anything but a mild and courteous course.
“This honorable Court of Civil Appeals” did not hold that the burden was not on appellee to prove the actual value of the automobile at the time of its loss, nor used any language that can be distorted into any such ruling. In fact there was no opening for such a ruling had it been desired, for the facts show beyond cavil what the automobile was worth at the time it was stolen. N. A. Pendergast swore the ear was worth' from $500 to $800. B. N. Driggers swore that the car was worth about $700. Even the witness Dorman, used by appellant, swore the ear was worth from $250 to $450. The evidence was ample to justify a verdict for $650. Appellant seems to have forgotten or ignored any testimony but that of its own- witness. The jury did not. While the burden rested on appellee to establish the value of the car when stolen, we still think that appellant is in a rather unenviable position when it complains of the value of a car fixed by itself.
On a parity with the contention that this court held that the burden of proving value of the automobile was on the appellant is the assertion that it was held “that the amount of the insurance on the automobile is to be taken as prima facie evidence of the sum recoverable- under the policy sued upon,” and that the policy is a valued one. No such holding was made by this court. Upon these false assumptions is based a learned dissertation on valued policies, with citation of authorities and quotations therefrom which might be very instructive if not aimed at a straw man erected by appellant.
This court did not hold,.nor is there any foundation arising from inference, suspicion, or imagination in stating, that the burden was, on appellant to show that the 'automobile in question was stolen by some one in the employ or belonging to the household of appel-lee. There was no occasion for such ruling from the fact that appellee showed that the car was stolen by some one not in her employ. No effort was made to. meet this proof.
There -is nothing in the motion demanding a written opinion, and it has only been given for the reason that it is possible that the Supreme Court might conclude that this court has final jurisdiction if a case originating in a county court as provided by law, and our judgment might be a final adjudication of cause.
There is no merit in the motion, and it is overruled.