Court Opinion

ID: 9831088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:48:11.16228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:30.584740
License: Public Domain

On Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing.
In our opinion, in speaking of Sabano-vich’s pleading in his application for the appointment of a receiver, we said that his pleading “may be admitted in evidence against him, not as a ratification or confirmation of the alteration of the note, but in rebuttal of appellant’s contention as to such alteration after the note was signed, and in rebuttal to his contention that the agreement was that the note was to be for $1,000, or an amount less than $1,800.” The above quotation does not clearly express just what we intended to say. We meant to say that, while the application .for the receiver may be admitted in evidence on the issue of ratification or confirmation of the alteration of the note, such admitted evidence would not of itself necessarily constitute ratification as a matter of law, but could be considered in connection with all other evidence on that issue. We intended only to apply the rule followed by the Supreme Court in the Buzard & Hilliard v. McAnulty & Mosty Case referred to in the opinion, in which it is said: “The pleadings of a party in one suit may be used in evidence *900against him in another, not as an estoppel, but as proof, open to rebuttal and explanation, that he admitted certain facts.”
With the above, the motion is overruled,