Court Opinion

ID: 9675231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:46:12.529229+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:32.581241
License: Public Domain

PETITION TO REHEAR DENIED
CARNEY, Presiding Judge.
On July 19, 1971, this Court announced an opinion affirming the action of the Chancery Court of Hamilton County awarding a judgment of $2,150 in favor of the complainants, Horace E. Hunt and wife, against the defendant, James Levoy Walker, for fraudulent concealment of defects in a house purchased by Hunt and wife from the defendant Walker. The defendant, James Levoy Walker, has filed a petition to rehear.
After careful consideration we hold that all of the assignments of error contained in the petition to rehear must be overruled except that portion of assignment of error No. VI in which the defendant-appellant, James Levoy Walker, contends that His Honor the Chancellor erred in decreeing that the fraud committed by the defendant-appellant Walker was “. . . such fraud or false pretense as is within the purview of 11 United States Code Annotated, Par. 35.”
In the opinion of date July 19, 1971, we pretermitted a ruling on this question because such finding was not necessary to the relief granted by His Honor the Chancellor.
The appellant makes a very forceful insistence in his petition to rehear that the effect of our former ruling is to take away from the Referee in Bankruptcy the authority to determine whether or not the fraud perpetrated by defendant Walker was such fraud as was covered by Paragraph 35 of 11 United States Code Annotated. It was and is our opinion that the broad appeal completely vacated the decree below and only the opinion and decree of this Court were binding on the appellant.
However, because of the earnest insistence of solicitor for the appellant that appellant is prejudiced by our failure to rule on assignment of error No. VI we have granted the petition to rehear assignment of error No. VI.
A re-study of the record reveals no mention of Paragraph 35, Title 11, United States Code Annotation, except in the final decree of the Chancellor. Complainants’ bill was predicated on fraud in fact and statutory fraud was not relied upon. A finding by the Chancellor of violation of Paragraph 35, Title 11, United States Code Annotated, was beyond the scope of the pleadings and on attack must be set aside. Gibson’s Suits in Chancery, 4th Edition, page 473, Section 555.
The opinion of date July 19, 1971, is modified so as to sustain assignment of error No. VI but we reaffirm the statement contained in our original opinion that such error on the part of His Honor the Chancellor was at most harmless error. T.C.A. Section 27-117. A decree will be entered in this Court affirming the decree of the lower Court awarding judgment in favor *738of the complainants against the defendant in the amount of $2,150 together with costs and accrued interest but said decree will recite that that portion of the decree of the lower Court adjudging the defendant’s conduct to be within the purview of Paragraph 35 of 11 United States Code Annotated is reversed.
MATHERNE and NEARN, JJT., concur.