Court Opinion

ID: 9442395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 18:46:02.082422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:05.193933
License: Public Domain

Petitions for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
We made a mistake saying in our opinion that “the ‘New Corporation’ represented the interests of the ‘Deficit Series’ in the ‘Construction Proceeding.’ ” It is true, as the “New Corporation” says, that it refused to take sides in that proceeding; on the other hand, it is also true that Prudence Realization Corporation did take sides, and in Points II and III of its brief in this court it argued that any interest payable upon the “Surplus Series” should be limited to the income earned upon the collateral pledged to secure those series. The sentence in question will, therefore, be amended so as to read as follows:
“The Prudence Realization Corporation represented the interests of the ‘Deficit Series’ in the ‘Construction Proceeding,’ and it is at least doubtful whether, if Sil*924biger had presented the situation to the district court, and asked to be freed of his duties to those series in order to 'espouse the side of the ‘Surplus Series,’ the judge would have thought it necessary that an attorney should be appointed in addition to him who represented the Prudence Realization Corporation.”
Petitions denied.