Court Opinion

ID: 9546044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:24:02.871707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:55.574904
License: Public Domain

On petition for rehearing.
*49PER CURIAM.
IT IS ORDERED that appellant’s petition for rehearing herein be denied.
MR, CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON, MR. JUSTICES CASTLES and THE HONORABLE ERNEST E. FENTON, District Judge, sitting in place of MR. JUSTICE BOTTOMLY, concur.
MR. JUSTICE ADAIR:
On petition of the appellant, Rose E. Monson, for a rehearing of this appeal I have again reviewed the arguments and authorities given and relied upon by the parties hereto and, at this time, desire to make it clear that my concurrence in the majority opinion filed herein does not extend to a concurrence in the language there quoted from the case of Sanders v. Sanders, 124 Mont. 595, 229 P.2d 164, where, in my dissenting opinion I expressed my views concerning the language from the Sanders case, supra, which again appears in the instant ease of Poepping v. Monson. My views continue as they are stated in my dissent in Sanders v. Sanders, supra, and I here reaffirm what I there said, and in the instant Poepping case I agree only with the result reached in the majority decision.