Case Name: William H. Snyder, Appellee, v. W. H. Lassen, Special Administrator of the Estate of Garland H. Lichty, Deceased, Appellant, C. M. Beachy and The Snyder Ice Cream Company, Appellees
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1943-06-12
Citations: 157 Kan. 20
Docket Number: No. 35,654
Parties: William H. Snyder, Appellee, v. W. H. Lassen, Special Administrator of the Estate of Garland H. Lichty, Deceased, Appellant, C. M. Beachy and The Snyder Ice Cream Company, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 157
Pages: 20–22

Head Matter:
No. 35,654
William H. Snyder, Appellee, v. W. H. Lassen, Special Administrator of the Estate of Garland H. Lichty, Deceased, Appellant, C. M. Beachy and The Snyder Ice Cream Company, Appellees.
(138 P. 2d 274)
Opinion on rehearing filed June 12, 1943.
(For original opinion of affirmance see 156 Kan. 230, 132 P. 2d 624.)
George Siefkin, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Robert C. Foulston, Samuel E. Bartlett, Lester L. Morris, George B. Powers, Carl T. Smith, C. H. Morris, John F. Eberhardt and Paul H. White, all of Wichita, were on the briefs for the appellant.
Glenn Porter, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Getto McDonald, Dwight, S. Wallace, William Tinker and Arthur W. Skaer, all of Wichita, were on the briefs for appellee William H. Snyder; Claude I. Depew, W. E. Stanley, Lawrence Weigand and William C. Hook, all of Wichita, were on the briefs for appellee Snyder Ice Cream Company; W. A. Kahrs, of Wichita, argued the cause, and C. A. McCorkle, Robert H. Nelson and Henry L. Butler, all of Wichita, were on the briefs for appellee C. M. Beachy.

Opinion:
OPINION ON REHEARING
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Dawson, C. J.:
For reasons which appeared sufficient to the court, appellant's motion for a rehearing was granted. The cause was again briefed and argued at length, and upon further exhaustive consideration our first judgment of affirmance announced in 156 Kan. 230, 132 P. 2d 624, is adhered to.
Included in the motion for a rehearing was a request that in the event of a reaffirmance we should interpret the trial court's finding of fact and conclusion of law which pertain to an offer of defendant Beachy to erect a trust fund for the benefit of the minor heirs of Lichty out of a proportionate increase of the assets of the Snyder Ice Cream Company accruing to the 135 shares of stock acquired by him, which was the crucial issue in this litigation. But this matter is still pending in the district court; nobody is complaining about it; and clearly it is not now open to appellate review. (Wideman v. Faivre, 100 Kan. 102, 108, 163 Pac. 619.)
The judgment is reaffirmed.