Court Opinion

ID: 9586667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:13:53.859851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:47.253216
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We have read the motion for rehearing carefully. In our original opinion we did not think it necessary to labor through the pleadings to the extent of pointing out, paragraph by paragraph, the motion to quash the process which referred to the amendment filed by the plaintiff on July 18, 1959. It would have been necessary to go into the amendment paragraph by paragraph.
Actually, according to our minds, the amendment contains, as pointed out, an objection to the alleged addition of the word, “Inc.” in paragraph 1, and generally otherwise the motion to quash is predicated on the allegation that the process of July 20, 1959, is null and void. We have reread the opinion as it was written and we do believe that we have sufficiently covered each point to which objection is made and we have nothing to add at this point except to deny the motion for rehearing and adhere to our judgment of April 28,1960.

Motion for rehearing denied.

Carlisle, J., concurs. Townsend, J., concurs specially.