Court Opinion

ID: 9559711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:34:10.012192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:33.985522
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
KEETON, Justice.
Subsequent to the filing of decision in this matter, respondent filed a petition for rehearing on two grounds: first, that no specifications of error were filed on behalf of appellant; second, that the word “consideration” as used in Sec. 32-103, I.C.„ should be construed to include the benefits, derived by the minor by use of the property purchased.
As to the first ground, alleged absence of specifications of error, if it had any merit, was not raised or presented until after decision in the case. Hence if a valid objection did exist, such objection was by the respondent waived.
The Court did not consider or decide what benefits, if any, by use of the property purchased, should be deducted from the amount paid on the purchase price-’ by the minor for the reason, under the decision, on other grounds, the Court concluded the minor was not entitled to recover any part of the down payment, Hence what the rule may be as to an accounting for benefits by the minor, when he is the actor and asking for a rescission and recovery of the purchase price, was not, and need not be, discussed or decided in this case.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
GIVENS, C. J., and PORTER, TAYLOR and THOMAS, JJ., concur.