Court Opinion

ID: 9705649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:14:52.527084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:12.953433
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
CARSON, J.
— We have examined the appellee’s petition for rehearing and the appellant’s brief in opposition to the petition for rehearing.
In our opinion none of the reasons stated in the petition for rehearing require any further consideration by the court. We do feel, however, that appellee has misconstrued the language on page 54 of Castle v. Kroeger (1942), 111 Ind. App. 43, 54, 39 N. E. 2d 459 where we find the following statement:
“. . . the burden to go forward shifted and it was obligatory upon him for whose use and benefit the conveyance was made to establish that he acted in good faith, that he took no advantage of his superior position and influence, . . .”
For the reasons above stated the petition for rehearing is denied.
Prime, P. J., and Faulconer, J., concur.
Wickens, J., not participating.
Note. — Reported in 210 N. E. 2d 378. Rehearing denied 211 N. E. 2d 197.