Court Opinion

ID: 9834342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:30:10.767755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:13.966919
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
After mature consideration of appellants’ very forceful motion for rehearing, we feel constrained to adhere to the conclusions expressed in our opinion affirming the judgment of the t-rial court.- Some of the questions presented by the motion, we think, were involved and decided adversely to appellants’ contention by the opinion of the Supreme Court, reversing our original opinion and remanding the case to this court for the disposal of questions hot involved in that opinion. We think we have properly disposed of all such questions in our opinion affirming the judgment of the trial court, and the motion must therefore be refused.
In connection with the motion for rehearing, appellants have filed a motion to correct and supplement our findings of fact. The statement in our opinion that appellant C. H. Dickey1 “voluntarily came into the suit” is not accurate. He was made a party to the suit by a cross-bill filed by the original defendant, Harris-Hahlo Company. This inaccurate statement in the opinion had no material bearing upon the conclusion that the husband’s presence and answer in the suit authorized a judgment against him as pro forma defendant upon the cause of action established against Mrs. Dickey.
. We cannot agree with appellants that there was no evidence to support a finding by the jury that any of the medical expenses claimed by appellee were reasonable or necessary. No witness testified in hsec verba that these expenses were reasonable or necessary; but the .character and extent of appellee’s injuries, the services rendered by appellee’s physicians, and the amount paid therefor and for medicines, were shown, and from these facts the jury could find both the necessity and reasonableness of these expenses.