Barnhart v. Henderson
This text of 24 N.W.2d 854 (Barnhart v. Henderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Counsel, on motion for rehearing, directs our attention to syllabus 2 of the opinion which reads as follows: “When an admission is treated as a matter of pleading excusing the pleader’s opponent from offering evidence on the point admitted, the admission is necessarily conclusive as to the fact admitted, but it does not preclude the party making it from proving other independent facts in avoidance of those admitted.”
The language of syllabus 2 objected to is the part following the last comma, as follows: “but it does not preclude the party making it from proving other independent facts in avoidance of those admitted.” The contention is that the syllabus, with the language objected to remaining therein, is contrary to the established law of this jurisdiction, and would tend to confuse the profession on the proper rule.
After considerate study, we conclude the point is well taken, and the language objected to in syllabus 2 should be, [983]*983and is, eliminated therefrom, and likewise the same language and language pertaining thereto appearing in the body of the opinion. .
Inasmuch as the foregoing constitutes a matter of clarification, and does not affect the logic nor the result of the opinion, we adhere to the original opinion with the changes made therein as pointed out in this supplemental opinion. The motion for rehearing is denied.
Motion for Rehearing Denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
24 N.W.2d 854, 147 Neb. 982, 1947 Neb. LEXIS 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnhart-v-henderson-neb-1947.