Court Opinion

ID: 9866106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 00:22:37.939411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:11:47.019857
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The application of defendant for a rehearing in this case was granted. The action of the court in granting it was prompted by the fact that, on the first hearing, on the record before it, the court was of the opinion that the judgment, instead of being one of nonsuit, should be an absolute judgment in favor of defendant, but that it was unable to make the judgment absolute, since defendant, who was the apipellee, had not, as it thought, by answer to the appeal, asked that the judgment be amended by making it an absolute one in his favor. However, the court was mistaken in its impression that defendant had not filed the required answer to the appeal, and therefore it became obvious that defendant was entitled to a rehearing.
After the granting of the rehearing, plaintiff has filed, in this court, a motion to re*942mand the ease, the motion resting chiefly on the.ground that he, through his counsel, has discovered, by accident, records in writing, which were not available upon the trial of the ease, showing that defendant and appellee herein, has been paid by bank checks of the Russell Sugar Company, Inc., the identical sums of money he claims as due him by that company. In support of this motion counsel has filed, as a part of it, a sworn statement of some of the bank cheeks, issued by the Russell Sugar Company, Inc., payable to defendant and appellee, which he urges will show that defendant’s claims are utterly unfounded. The application, is sworn to by one of plaintiff’s counsel, and with it is also filed an affidavit by the bookkeeper of the Russell Sugar Company, Inc., accounting for the books of that company, which were supposed to have been lost or destroyed, showing that, the check stubs, which have been found, are in the bookkeeper’s handwriting, and that the records were misplaced and were not available at the time of the trial. There is also attached to the application a sworn itemized copy of the bank account of the Russell Sugar Company, Inc., and a sworn comparison, by a certified public accountant, of the cheek stubs of that company with the books of the bank, and showing that the bank charged the company with amounts similar to the amounts shown on the stubs, showing cheeks drawn in favor of defendant.
If the facts, shown in the motion to remand, should be established, they would have an important bearing on the case, and might bring about an entirely different result. It would be going too far, in the face of the showing now made, to grant defendant the amendment, prayed for, in the answer to the appeal, making the judgment, appealed from, an absolute or final judgment in favor of defendant, since this step might result in an injustice. Therefore the question is presented whether we should remand the case or merely reinstate our former decree, affirming the judgment of the lower court, which was one of nonsuit. All things considered, including the fundamental and contradictory nature ol’ the evidence, as compared with that now In the record, which the present showing may be expected to bring about, leads us to the conclusion that it would be better, in the interest of justice, merely to reinstate our former decree. If plaintiff should then desire, he may bring his case anew, and show all of the facts, now available, pertinent to the case, and defendant will be equally as well protected.
Eor these reasons, our former decree is reinstated, and made the judgment of the court.