Court Opinion

ID: 9523783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:46:51.739668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:47.461322
License: Public Domain

*62On Petition for Rehearing.
Crumpacker, J.
From appellant’s brief in support of his petition for a rehearing of this appeal we quote the following: “Furthermore, this court says that Charles Istrate had no knowledge of the assignment until 1939. This is not a correct statement of the record.” From the condensed recital of the evidence, as the appellant prepared and placed it in his original brief, we quote the following from the direct examination of Charles Istrate: “I was not present when plaintiff’s Exhibit 3, the assignment of the mortgage to me, was executed. I did not have any knowledge of this assignment until 1939 when I acquired knowledge of it from my sister, who was the wife of Charles Miladin.”
Quoting further from the appellant’s brief in support of his petition for a rehearing: “Thereafter, in discussing the evidence, the court suggests that Miladin ‘forced’ the Coles to make the deed to Charles Istrate. . . . Nowhere is there any evidence that Miladin ‘forced’ anything on anybody.” In the cross-examination of Albert Cole we find the following: “We were forced to make the deed and we were forced to pay $800 or thereabouts.” It is clear that by those words, in context, Cole meant he was forced by Miladin and his attorney to make the deed mentioned.
The remainder of appellant’s petition and supporting-brief is largely a restatement of arguments already made and which we considered and decided in our initial opinion. We are not convinced that we are wrong and this comment is primarily for the purpose of refuting the charge that we misstated the record in expressing our views originally.
Petition denied.
Note.—Reported in 119 N. E. 2d 12.
Rehearing denied 119 N. E. 2d 901.