Court Opinion

ID: 5169203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-02 04:51:57.312888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:26:00.263999
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
SULLIVAN, J.
This is a petition for rehearing. The petitioner suggests that the majority of the court have treated the petitioner’s motion for nonsuit as made solely upon the ground of failure of proof and not as a motion made upon the ground of fatal variance between the allegations and the proof. In that, counsel for petitioner is mistaken. It is admitted by counsel that the motion for nonsuit involved two questions: (1) Whether the defendant had been actually misled to her prejudice in maintaining her defense upon the merits because of the variance between the allegations and the proof; and (2) Were the appellants the real parties in interest? While the first point is only inferentially decided by the opinion, the court considered that matter and concluded that the variance between the allegations and proof did not mislead the appellant. Section 4225, Revised Statutes of 1887, provides that whenever it appears that the party has been so misled, the court may order the pleadings to be amended upon such terms as may be just; but it is clear to us that the variance complained of did not mislead the adverse party, and for that reason the. court followed the provisions of section 4231, Revised Statutes of 1887, which provides that the court must in every stage of an action disregard any error or defect in the pleadings or proceedings, which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties, and no judgment shall be reversed or affected by reason of such error or defect.
A rehearing is denied.
Ailshie, J., concurs.
Stockslager, C. J., dissents.