Court Opinion

ID: 9694876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:59:14.751001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:06.380144
License: Public Domain

HAMITER Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Since I am not convinced that error attended any of the reasons and conclusions enunciated in the opinion rendered on the original hearing, of which I was the author, I must and do adhere to those pronouncements.
On Further Application for Rehearing.
*1109PER CURIAM.
In the opinion which we handed down in this case on rehearing we made the following statement:
“Accordingly, in the case at bar, defendants are entitled under their reconventional demand to offset against any monies finally held to be due by them to plaintiffs the total of all paraphernal funds of Mrs. Bynum deposited in her bank account between the periods December 24, 1940 until August 1, 1944, when all income thereafter derived from her paraphernal property fell into the community. In addition, they are entitled to recover the inherittances received by Mrs. Bynum which were deposited in her account after December 24, 1940.”
Although we did not explicitly say so in our opinion on rehearing, we, of course, intended to reserve to plaintiff the right to offset, as against the amount due Mrs. Bynum in restitution of her paraphernal funds, any amount or amounts withdrawn by her from her bank account which she used for her separate estate.
Both applications for a rehearing are refused.
HAMITER, Justice does not take part in the rendition of this PER CURIAM, he having dissented from the ruling to which it relates.