Court Opinion

ID: 9448247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:28:17.643528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:20.678469
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
On petition for rehearing appellee “asks the Court to consider other matters encompassed in this appeal which are not reflected in the Court’s opinion” and which appellee asserts must be de-r termined in the interest of justice on retrial of this case.
The “other matters” so referred to by appellee relate to issues raised by appellant’s counterclaim seeking judgment against appellee for his failure to “dredge the barge channel” as considered in our opinion previously filed herein.
Appellant, in its assignment of errors in this appeal, claimed that the “District Court erred in failing to allow defendant an offset for the fair and reasonable costs of completion of the barge channel.” But, as appellee states in his petition for rehearing: “In view of the Trial Court’s judgment, there was no occasion (for it) to pass upon the credit due Appellant,” if any, as asserted in the counterclaim herein. We are in accord with appellee’s statement of that situation. It was a consequence thereof that matters relating to the appellant’s counterclaim were not discussed in the main opinion filed herein. The District Court made no findings of fact or conclusions of law as to what “appellant is entitled to” as a credit to appellee’s claim for cost of “dredging the barge channel as shown,” presumably because it found “(t)he contract did not require the construction of a barge channel as such.”
Therefore, the reversal of the judgment entered herein will permit the District Court at another trial to consider that matter, along with all other issues raised and presented by the pleadings herein, “not inconsistent with” our opinion as previously filed.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing is denied.