Court Opinion

ID: 9660000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:00:36.353675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:13.832396
License: Public Domain

On- Appellees’ -Motion for .-Rehearing'."
In' tbeir- application for rebearing, ap-pellees move the.Court to.strike from the ’ opinion certain statements referring to concessions made by counsel for appellees at the oral argument. The motion is as follows :
“Appellees move the court to strike from its opinion the statements made therein with reference to oral argument made by counsel for appellees. These statements of the court relate to the genuineness of the signature of George Seydler on the instrument dated June 8, 1938 and will be found at the following places in the court’s opinion :
“On page 8 of the court’s opinion, beginning with the word ‘however’ in the fourth line following the period.
“On page 8 in the first line of the next to the last, paragraph, beginning with the word ‘independently.’
“On page 9 in the first four lines of the last paragraph.
“In connection with the foregoing, it is here stated that counsel for appellees had no intention of conceding that the evidence established that the signature on the instrument of June 8, 1938 was the genuine signa*480ture of George Seydler, deceased.- What counsel intended to be said, and what counsel believes was actually said, was, in-effect, that no witness testified to any fraud,; or .testified that the signature was not genuine, but the point appellees were trying to make was that the evidence as shown by the record at most'only. raised an issue of fact .as to whether the signature was genuine, and the trial court’s finding was conclusive. The brief-of appellees will show that such contention was made.there.-.Appellees submit. that,- under the circumstances of the record in this case, if this court overrules this motion for rehearing then appellees should be permitted to go to the Supreme Court on the written record.”
At the Judges’ 'conference immediately following submission -of this cause, the members of the .Court were hard put to convince themselves, in the light of the contents of appellees’ brief — their hearing to the contrary notwithstanding — that the concessions referred to had actually been made; but, after full discussion reached the conclusions- in respect thereto which appear in the opinion. In the light of the contents of the motion for rehearing, we are convinced that we misunderstood counsel, or misconstrued what - was said, or,, if what was said would bear out what is stated in the opinion, that the statement was made unguardedly and unintentionally and ought not to be binding on appellees.
We are' happy, in the interest of justice and fair play, to sustain the above motion, and we now 'withdraw so much of the opinion as we are asked to withdraw thereby. _
As we understand the motion, there is no question but that at the oral argument it ■ was conceded by appellees that they claimed no .fraud..
We have carefully considered all grounds of appellees’ motion for rehearing and, except as herein set out, find no merit therein and same is refused.