Court Opinion

ID: 9826750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 16:31:34.02629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:13.990470
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON PETITION TO REHEAR.
The petitioner has filed a petition to rehear.
The court decreed a right in the complainant to a sale of the marble rights for partition. Upon inspection ■ of the bill and of the declaration made in open court as well as the assignments of error, it is seen that the complainant wants to retain and enjoy the leasehold rental or his portion of the rent during the term of the lease and, therefore, he wants to sell for partition the reversion or remainder estate only. This was made clear by his testimony.
In its opinion the court held he had a right to partition the estate as a whole but not the reversionary interests only or remainder, and remanded the case to the lower court for the purpose of a sale.
Upon a reconsideration of the case, the court is of the opinion it is not proper to go beyond the prayer of the bill, the complainant’s testimony, and his assignments of error, and grant him relief in a matter he has said he did not want. At least, he has never directly said he wanted a partition of the whole interest. He has not answered this petition to rehear and this court does not know that he desires a partition if it entails the loss of his rentals from the leasehold estate.
This court is of the opinion it should have confined its decree to the assignments of error and to have denied the relief asked therein. This does not have the effect of denying him the right to have or bring an ordinary partition proceeding should he desire a partition of the whole estate.
The appellant will pay seven-eighths of the costs of the appeal, and the appellee the balance. Sustained.