Case Name: Owen W. Frogge and Fred Frogge, a copartnership doing business as Frogge Motor Company, Appellants, v. B. B. Belford, individually, and B. B. Belford, Mary Belford, L. R. Belford and Amos B. Zimmerman, a copartnership doing business as Belford Motors, Appellees
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1950-02-28
Citations: 168 Kan. 582
Docket Number: No. 37,610
Parties: Owen W. Frogge and Fred Frogge, a copartnership doing business as Frogge Motor Company, Appellants, v. B. B. Belford, individually, and B. B. Belford, Mary Belford, L. R. Belford and Amos B. Zimmerman, a copartnership doing business as Belford Motors, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 168
Pages: 582–582

Head Matter:
No. 37,610
Owen W. Frogge and Fred Frogge, a copartnership doing business as Frogge Motor Company, Appellants, v. B. B. Belford, individually, and B. B. Belford, Mary Belford, L. R. Belford and Amos B. Zimmerman, a copartnership doing business as Belford Motors, Appellees.
(215 P. 2d 200)
Opinion on rehearing filed February 28, 1950.
(For original opinion, see 168 Kan. 74, 211 P. 2d 49.)
W. A. Kahrs, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Eli Eubanks, Austin M. Cowan, Robert H. Nelson, Clarence N. Holeman and Keith L. Wallis, all of Wichita, were with him on the briefs for the appellants.
Vincent F. Hiebsch, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Milton Zacharias, Eugene L. Pirtle, Kenneth H. Hiebsch and J. R. Sheedy, all of Wichita, were with him on the briefs for the appellees.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Parker, J.:
For reasons deemed to be sufficient a rehearing was granted in this case. The pertinent facts and issues involved are set forth at length in our original opinion (168 Kan. 74, 211 P. 2d 49) and need not be restated.
The case was not rebriefed but it was reargued by counsel for the respective parties whose oral presentation of the cause was confined to matters discussed in the briefs and failed to raise any questions of law not already given consideration in the original opinion.
After having examined the briefs and carefully considered all questions argued on the rehearing the court fails to find anything warranting a change in the former opinion. Therefore it adheres to. its original decision affirming the judgment of the district court of Sedgwick county in sustaining a demurrer to the appellants' evidence.