Court Opinion

ID: 9830298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:05:09.275128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:18.454504
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
What was said in our former opinion relative to the right of appellants under the provision of the policies to require appel-lee to submit to an examination trader oath was limited to its bearing on the right of appellants to a continuance upon a first application.
Prior to the filing of the suits, appellants had made a formal demand for appellee’s examination under oath, which was not refused. After such filing appellants’ counsel requested appellee’s deposition without the necessity of applying for process. As stated in our original opinion the agreement by appellee’s counsel to give such deposition was, under the facts, the legal equivalent of agreeing to comply with such demand. Had appellee’s counsel refused the request upon the grottnd that appellants’ acts constituted a waiver of their right to an examination under oath, appellants could have urged a plea in abatement and secured a judicial determination thereon. But the simplest procedure was to get ap-pellee’s deposition by requesting it. Upon the question of the right of appellants to a first continuance for the breach of said agreement we think the question of waiver is not in the case.
We overrule appellee’s motion for rehearing.
Overruled.