Lanius v. Donnell

On Petition To Rehear

Counsel have filed herein a very dignified and respectful petition to rehear. This petition in every particular presents the identical argument heretofore forcefully made in the respective briefs in this Court and in the oral argument so ably made here. We reached the conclusion that we did as expressed in the original opinion, after very carefully reading this record and considering these briefs and arguments. Since this petition to rehear has been made we have again reviewed what we went over heretofore when we first read this record. We can find absolutely nothing herein that in any way would change our mind.

In Louisville & N. Railroad Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 125 Tenn. 658, 148 S.W. 671, *81this Court quoted from Mr. Justice Story to the effect that he was sorry at times to disagree with counsel but sometimes it was necessary when the facts and the law convinced the Court otherwise. We suggest counsel read this ease as well as Buie 32 of this Court which cites the case just referred to, that is Louisville & N. Railroad Co., v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., supra, and other text writers on the subject.

This is a most outstanding case from the standpoint of the two lower courts disagreeing on the facts and is a perfect example of the rule to be followed, that is, to remember always that the one seeing witnesses is in a far better position to tell which are detailing the truth than is one who sees merely the record for many reasons which have been cited in cases of this Court in the past. We are sorry to disagree with counsel but are convinced that the Chancellor was correct in his findings herein and we must therefore deny the petition to rehear.

HumphReys, Justice, not participating.