Ballagh v. Interstate Bus. Men's Acc. Ass'n

• Decision Date: 05 May 1916
• Docket Number: No. 30478.,30478.
• Parties: BALLAGH v. INTERSTATE BUSINESS MEN'S ACC. ASS'N.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

176 Iowa 110

157 N.W. 726

BALLAGH

v.INTERSTATE BUSINESS MEN'S ACC. ASS'N.

No. 30478.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 5, 1916.

Appeal from District Court, Jasper County; Henry Silwold, Judge.

On petition for rehearing. Overruled.

Supplemental opinion. For former opinion, see 155 N. W. 241.

*726PER CURIAM.

A petition for rehearing filed by appellant in this case has been presented in which the several points made in our original opinion are reviewed and reargued with much thoroughness, but it is essentially a reargument along the lines pressed*727upon our attention in the former hearing, and we adhere to the conclusion already announced.

In view, however, of the explanatory statement made by counsel concerning certain language employed by them upon the original submission and criticized by us in disposing of the case, we modify that opinion as follows:

(1) By omitting therefrom all that part beginning with the words, “We have,” in the nineteenth line of first column of page 243 of volume 155 of the Northwestern Reporter, where the same is printed, down to and including the words, “judicial labors,” in the fiftieth line of the same column, and by inserting in place thereof the following:

“We are not prepared to thus introduce confusion into our cases. The precedent thus established has stood the test of time unchallenged for the last twelve years or more; there is nothing intrinsically unjust in the doctrine there affirmed and the opinion has the support of the weight of authority.”

(2) Also by omitting all that part beginning with the words, “We should not,” in the fifty-first line of the second column of the same page down to and including the words, “ill afford,” in the sixty-seventh line of the same column.

The reporter in preparing copy of the original opinion for official publication will correct the same as herein indicated.

The opinion being thus modified, the petition for rehearing is overruled.