Court Opinion

ID: 9830750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:26:43.643927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:26.314569
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In the motion by appellant for a rehearing in this case, our attention has been called to an error made by us in summing up the findings of the jury in response to special issues; we are requested to correct the mistake, which we gladly do. We stated in the original opinion that by the verdict, the jury found that “appellee notified appellant of his lease to Engert prior to the fire; appellant collected balance due on premiums after it' had knowledge of the lease to Engert, and that by so doing, appellant waived any objections it may have had to the lease of the property.” The statement by us that the jury found appellant waived its objection to the leasing is not accurate. Special issue No. 11 reads: “Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that such collection of premiums, if any, by defendant, under the circumstances, constituted a waiver by defendant of all objections to the occupancy of the premises •by the said lessee?” The answer was: “No.” The erroneous statement above mentioned is here withdrawn.
However, in view of the findings by the jury in response to special issue No. 13-F that such occupancy of the premises by the tenant did not contribute to the loss in question, our views as expressed in the original opinion relative to appellees’ right to recover on the policy would not be affected *882by the error pointed out. The appellant is entitled to have the correction made.
We see no reason to changeiour ultimate conclusions as previously expressed, and with the correction herein contained, the motion for rehearing is overruled.