Court Opinion

ID: 9763936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:02:14.09371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:51.542575
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In its motion for rehearing appellant asserts our court erred in accepting as competent the affidavit of appellee’s Administrator when such competence was vigorously challenged. If we read the record correctly, two of the questions in her requests for admissions which challenged affiant Taylor’s competence to make an affidavit were objected to by appellee and the objections sustained by the trial court. The questions were numbers 135 and 136 and were:
“135. Louis S. Taylor is not of sound mind.
“136. Louis S. Taylor has heretofore been convicted of a crime or offense.”
Appellee objected to the two questions “for the reason that the same are scandalous and not filed in good faith.” The transcript before us shows such objections were sustained. Thus, so far as those, two questions are concerned the trial court resolved affiant’s competence.
Appellant’s motion further challenges the affidavit because it did not show affiant was above the age of 21 years. Rule 166-A V.A.T.R., Section (e), requires only that the affidavit shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters therein stated. As we read the rule there is no requirement that the affiant must be over 21 years of age. We know of no law in this state requiring a person as a matter of law to be over 21 years of age in order to be a competent witness.
In her motion for rehearing appellant further states:
“The most startling discovery is that the mere fact that a hospital has been given tax exemption does not make it ‘charitable.’ ”
Nowhere in the court’s opinion did we hold such a showing makes the institution a charity. We merely stated such fact as one of the many reasons appellee contended the hospital was a charity.
Because of the strict rules against granting summary judgment, we have studied ap*482pellants’ motion for rehearing very carefully, as we did her brief on appeal. We can see many methods by which a fact issue might have been raised in this record but we are unable to find any place where a single one of those methods was employed.
Accordingly, the motion for rehearing is overruled.