Court Opinion

ID: 9830546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:16:44.568976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:24.133870
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We are satisfied as to the correctness of our decision, based, as it necessarily was, upon the case as pleaded and tried and as presented on appeal; however, after contending at length that the court erred in affirming the judgment, for reasons stated in the opinion, appellant introduces, by its motion for rehearing, an entirely new issue, saying: “But should the court see fit to hold to its finding that the death resulted from an infection, we wish to direct the court’s attention to the fact that such infection is within the policy exemption, and appellant is not entitled to recover herein under any theory.” Again appellant says infection cannot form the basis of a recovery under the policy, as *875suggested by tbe court, because it is expressly exempt under the terms of the policy sued upon.
This defense was neither urged in the court below nor on appeal, until presented in the motion for rehearing, as above stated. The belated defense cannot be considered, hs a litigant is forbidden to assume an attitude on appeal not taken at the trial. See Boatner v. Providence, etc., Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 241 S. W. 136, 140, and authorities cited.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is in all things overruled.