Court Opinion

ID: 9529043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:46:53.885474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:37.966604
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
Hunter, J.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing of this cause argues that we erroneously decided this case because we wrongly held that “appellant had received all of the bricks or walls called for under the contract.” Appellant’s petition relies solely on his erroneous notion of our holding in the opinion. We did not hold unqualifiedly that, appellant received all of the brick as enumerated in the contract. The statement on this point is quoted verbatim as follows:
“The evidence further tends to indicate that appellant received all, or at least most, of the brick from the wrecked walls as enumerated in the contract. There is also evidence from appellant’s witnesses tending to show that by the affidavit for immediate possession, appellant’s agent caused brick to be removed from the site that did not belong to appellant.” (emphasis added herein)
Therefore, because appellant has misconstrued the holding of this ease, on which holding he places his sole reliance for a rehearing, we must deny said petition for a rehearing.
Petition for rehearing denied.
Bierly, C. J., Mote and Smith, JJ. Concur.
Note. — Reported in 209 N. E. 2d 528. Rehearing Denied in 210 N. E. 2d 260.