Court Opinion

ID: 9830096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:52:04.44232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:02.837697
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
The expression in our former opinion that the appellant “further concedes the sufficiency of the evidence to support all the given findings of negligence upon its own part,” was erroneous and should have been to the effect that it only conceded the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s finding that truck No. 2 was not lighted. The correction is accordingly made with pleasure, on reminder from appellant’s counsel.
The motion has been carefully considered — especially insofar as it attacks the findings of fact made by this Court upon original hearing as not being supported by the evidence, but, with all due deference to the appellant, it does not specifically point out any material respect in which there was an overstatement; neither has this court on a review of its former findings found them so lacking; they must accordingly be reiterated as' reflecting the substantial facts developed upon the trial below. ‘
Under the .conclusion that the cause was. correctly decided on original hearing, the motion will be overruled.
Refused.