Court Opinion

ID: 9666471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:17:05.268634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:28.852168
License: Public Domain

On Petition to Rehear
Burnett, Justice.
There has been seasonably filed in this case a dignified, courteous and forceful re-argument of some of the questions heretofore so forcefully and ably presented. This petition, of course, does not.comply with Rule 32 of this *438Court (185 Term. 879), in that there is really nothing new presented.
This case has been rather intriguing and interesting to each individual member of this Court as well as to the Court as a whole. We discussed the matter on more than one occasion prior to its being argued before us and again did the same after argument. It was after this, and after each member of the Court had been furnished with a brief herein, that the conclusions were reached as expressed in our original opinion.
We did not overlook the many authorities cited on the question of fraud originally, nor do we those that are cited now. In our judgment, for the reasons stated in our original opinion, these questions are not determinative nor at issue herein.
Whether or not Rosie Lee Cooper was married to Robert Cooper is not the question herein. Rosie Lee Cooper could have had under evidence in this record a good reason for believing that she was the widow of Robert Cooper. Though of course we see no reason for her stating that these children were his. She had for some time lived with Robert Cooper. Robert Cooper had recognized her as his wife, to such an extent that he had so stated in a life insurance policy he had where he worked, and as such she was recognized as his widow. But even though she did not believe these things, and it is manufactured out of the whole cloth, in a legal sense, it was completely immaterial to the lawsuit. This is the point in the lawsuit that we tried to make as did the Court of Appeals. The only material fact which concerned Rosie Lee Cooper was that she at the time this suit was brought, prosecuted it as the administratrix of the estate.
*439Of course we in our zest and zeal of arguing lawsuits attribute various and sundry meanings to the word “fraud”. This though, this word “fraud”, is strictly limited to material questions in a legal sense.
We take the following language from the reply brief of the present petition which is the conclusion of the one who prepared this brief. This too is our conclusion. We thus quote and adopt their statement as follows:
“The attorneys are among the ablest and most diligent practicing in the present day trial bar. Their inaction cannot be attributed to neglect but more reasonably to the belief which the opinion of both Courts has established to be correct that the question of widowhood vel non was immaterial to any issue in the lawsuit. It was only after suffering an adverse verdict and pursuing every avenue that afforded even an arguable chance of relief to their client that the point was raised at all.” (The question of the trial judge granting a new trial on newly.discovered evidence.) “This is not said in criticism but in commendation, as it is an advocate ’s duty to raise and argue as vigorously as he can any point that may be of value to his client.”
We are of course sorry always that we cannot agree with every lawyer and his position in a lawsuit. If this were true there would never be a decision in a lawsuit and the only way that we know to do is to, regardless of personalities, decide the lawsuit as we think it should be decided under law and justice.
For the reasons herein expressed the petition to rehear must be denied.
PREwitt, Justice, not participating.