Court Opinion

ID: 9778865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:24:03.595623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:14.819094
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
Contrary to the statement made by us in disposing of the plea of judicial estoppel appellants contend that all appellees, not just Mrs. Guinn, are so estopped.
We still find it unnecessary to review all of the pleadings and their amendments in order to decide this question because, in our opinion, the rule is inapplicable.
The judgment in Cause . 669, even though void, was nonetheless a judgment which no prudent lawyer would ignore and all parties have asserted or assumed its validity upon occasion. All facts were known to all' parties. There has been no concealment or misrepresentation of facts and no party has gained any substantial advantage or suffered any serious detriment *378as a result of what amounted to, at most, indecision concerning a matter of law.
Estoppel is invoked to prevent injustice. To apply the doctrine here would cause injustice. This we refuse to do.
Appellants also contend that we have clothed the county court judgment with a presumption of regularity and validity but have denied such presumption to the judgment of the district court in Cause 669.
The answer to this is that presumptions disappear in the light of undisputed facts.
The motion is overruled.