Court Opinion

ID: 9639927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:51:56.122578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:22.974097
License: Public Domain

On Motion For Eear^ument
Adams, J.
The purpose of a motion for reargument is to point out matters presented in the brief and relied upon in oral argument which it is thought were overlooked or misapprehended by this Court in reviewing the case. Basso v. Veysey, 118 Vt 399, 405, 110 A2d 706, Horicon v. Langlois, 115 Vt 81, 88, 52 A2d 888, and cases there cited.
The motion of the plaintiff claims, (2) that there was no evidence that there were no endorsements on the policy; (3) that she should not be deprived of the consideration of her exceptions because she did not file a bill of exceptions; (4) that the defendant did not prove its defense because the tender *258made was not proper; (5) that her motion for a directed verdict raised issues that this Court has not decided and are determinative of the case; (6) that the admission of defendant’s B, the photóstatic copy of the policy, over the objection and exception of the plaintiff was error and that this evidence should not be considered in passing upon the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.
The trouble with the plaintiff’s position is that, as pointed out in the opinion, she did not file her own bill of exceptions, signed by the presiding judged as required by statute. The matters covered by (2), no endorsement on the policy and (4), no proper tender, were grounds of the plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict which was overruled and exceptions allowed. That motion and (6), admission of the copy of the policy, defendant’s B, were all mentioned in the opinion and it was there pointed out that the plaintiff should have filed her own bill of exceptions if she desired to have the benefit of them in this Court. She has advanced no reason in her motion or its accompanying brief that requires an alteration of the opinion in that particular. This disposes of grounds (2), (3), (4), and (5) of the motion. Ground (1) is introductory and needs no attention.
In connection with ground (6) of the motion, the plaintiff relies up on Jones v. Gay’s Express, 110 Vt 531, 535, 9 A2d 121, wherein this Court held that inadmissible evidence, received under objection is not for consideration in passing upon a motion for a directed verdict. We recently approved this rule in Lavigne v. Rossetti, 118 Vt 456, 462, 114 A2d 407. The trouble with the plaintiff’s position is two-fold. (1) We stated in the opinion that an examination of the record satisfied us that its admission was without error. We adhere to that statement. (2) The above cases are not in point. There the objection to the evidence was by the party who was before this Court on his own bill of exceptions. Here the plaintiff is not in this Court on her own bill of exceptions. As pointed out in the opinion her exceptions are a nullity. Her objection to the evidence does not, therefore, survive as it has nothing to support it.

Motion for reargument denied. Let full entry go down.