Court Opinion

ID: 9611979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:02:20.114386+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:28:18.396825
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
Plaintiff has petitioned for a rehearing on two grounds: first, because this court did not decide the question of whether plaintiff was entitled to recover interest on the amount overpaid by him; and second, because the opinion does not specifically limit its holding to family corporations.
The question of whether or not interest was collectible, was not thoroughly briefed and the members of this court did not, and do not now, regard it as necessary for them to undertake the labor of briefing it, as the cause must be referred back to the trial court for further action.
What is said in an opinion relates solely to the facts of the ease being decided and is limited by those facts. We had before us a corporation in which all the stock was owned by members of a family. Necessarily, the decision related only to such a corporation and to no other. To obviate any uncertainty, we here state that the decision can be applied only to such family corporations.
With this explanation the petition for rehearing is denied
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied January 23,1947. Traynor, J., voted for a hearing.