Beck v. Givens, 2767

• Citation: 313 P.2d 977,77 Wyo. 176
• Decision Date: 23 July 1957
• Docket Number: No. 2767,2767
• Parties: Mae E. BECK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Earl GIVENS, as Administrator of the Estate of Donald Givens, Deceased, Defendant and Respondent.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming

Page 977

313 P.2d 977 77 Wyo. 176 Mae E. BECK, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
Earl GIVENS, as Administrator of the Estate of Donald Givens, Deceased, Defendant and Respondent. No. 2767. Supreme Court of Wyoming. July 23, 1957.

[77 Wyo. 177] Spence & Hill, Riverton, for appellant.

[77 Wyo. 178] Moran, Murphy & Hettinger, Riverton, in support of petition for rehearing, for respondent.

[77 Wyo. 193] PER CURIAM.

Defendant has filed a petition stating various reasons why a rehearing should be granted. We are impressed now as we were in the initial presentation of the case by counsel's ability, industry, and sincerity. Accordingly, any nonconcurrence with defendant's views on certain phases of the case arises because of the inherent difference of human viewpoint and the inevitability that in every case courts must disagree with and discard the position taken by one or the other of the litigants. Our analysis and discussion of the present case while completely objective may from the viewpoint of an interested party have appeared to be otherwise. This is often true where one litigant, feeling impelled to prevail over the other, places great emphasis on his own solution. A court in considering the problems of any disputants may choose either (a) the presented views which are to be finally adopted or (b) those supporting the opposing theory. The choice of one over the other is no reflection upon counsel, although it has apparently been so interpreted in this instance. Under the circumstances, we shall further delineate

Page 978

our views even though the petition for rehearing was not accompanied by a brief. ¹

As we interpret defendant's petition, he insists that he does not comprehend the basis for our opinion, urging especially that:

(1) The burden is upon appellant to show wherein [77 Wyo. 194] the trial court erred in its decision, all unspecified matters being waived.

(2) Defendant's statement that plaintiff did not know of the bill of sale for the sheep until April 1, 1956, was borne out by the record.

(3) This court failed to give the reasons why the bill of sale covering the sheep was considered to be valid.

A review of the entire situation points up the reason for defendant's continued insistence on the correctness of his position. It stems from his initial concept that the testimony of plaintiff's daughter, Sharon Beck, was unworthy of belief and that 'the court would have been at liberty to disregard it in its entirety.' As we pointed out in the original opinion, and shall discuss hereafter, we are in fundamental disagreement with defendant on this controlling point.

Adverting then to the first of the three points raised in the petition, we agree that the burden was on plaintiff (appellant) to show wherein the trial court erred in its decision and all unspecified matters were waived. However,...