Court Opinion

ID: 9711782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:39:00.844659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:07.468627
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Buchanan, J.
—
Appellant Krick insists that he had no notice of the will compromise and that he was not represented by counsel at the hearing on February 5, 1964, at which time the court approved the compromise of the will contest. Certain attachments accompany the Petition for Rehearing which are merely argumentative of the facts certified to by the record. As indicated in our opinion, the last two paragraphs of the court’s order of February 5, 1964, read as follows:
“Comes now the Plaintiffs and Defendants by counsel and respectfully shows the Court that this cause has been compromised and now the Plaintiffs move the Court to dismiss this cause with prejudice.
“And now the Court being duly advised in the premises ORDERS this cause dismissed with prejudice to the Plaintiffs. Costs to the Defendants.” (Emphasis supplied.)
It is true the record does not state who was the Appellant’s counsel on February 5, 1964. Which particular practitioner of our noble profession Appellant may have then or subsequently employed has no effect whatsoever on the outcome of this case.
Appellant is at war with his own record and if it was in error no attempt has been made by him to proceed according to AP 15(C).
Rehearing is therefore denied for the reasons stated in our decision of January 25,1972.
Sullivan and Lowdermilk, JJ. (by designation), concur. White, P.J., not participating.