Court Opinion

ID: 9862864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 02:21:16.677165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:36:34.914069
License: Public Domain

On Petition to Eeheak
McAMIS, P. J.
Appellant has filed a petition to rehear insisting that we erroneously found that he had not insisted that the son had inherited the property at the time of the conversion of the bonds and the dis*327charge of the tax lien on the property. The petition fails to disclose where snch insistence had been made. It does cite evidence which seems to indicate that the conversion was made and the tax lien removed after the death of Mrs. Holbert and the inheritance of the property by Nick Holbert.
The insistence of unjust enrichment was not made in the pleadings filed by appellant in the Chancery Court. Nor was there any claim that any part of the tax lien was for taxes owing by Mrs. Holbert. Defendant’s answer (Tr. p. 46) reads:
“In 1950 it was deemed advantageous to sell said Lou-don County farm and another bill was filed in the Chancery Court of Loudon County seeking a confirmation of said sale because of the minority of Nicky Ray and under decrees of said court his part of the proceeds of said sale was invested in United States government bonds. Later the United States G-overnment made a deficiency assessment of income taxes against defendant and the penalties and interest thereon ran said tax assessment up to a considerable sum.”
It will be seen that there was no mention of taxes owing by Mrs. Holbert. In addition to the lack of pleadings to support this insistence, it is well known that a joint tax return is often made to reduce the taxes owing by one of the spouses and there is no showing made by the petition that Mrs. Holbert owed any taxes on any personal income she may have had, if any.
"We fail to see how the theory of unjust enrichment has any application under the pleadings and proof. And it is elementary that the parties on appeal will *328not be permitted to depart from the theory on which they asked the trial court to determine their rights.
It is also argued for the first time in the petition to rehear that the amount of the decree is for more than the value of the bonds. There was no request that the Chancellor make a finding as to the value of the bonds or refer that question to the Master. The question of the value of the bonds can not be considered for the further reason that there is no assignment of error complaining of the alleged excessiveness.
The petition will be denied at petitioner’s cost.
Hale and Cooper, JJ., concur.