Court Opinion

ID: 9529067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:47:06.818923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:38.632034
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
Wickens, J.
On petition for rehearing, appellants contend that it is erroneous to say that the action here was not on an open account. We are limited to a decision of the issues. Here the only question presented was whether the action was based upon an account or contract not in writing as referred to in Burns’ 1946 Replacement § 2-601, or whether it was an action on a written contract for the payment of money under Clause 5 of Burns’ 1946 Replacement § 2-602.
Our holding is expressly limited, as so required, to deciding that this action properly came under the latter statute.
Petition for rehearing denied.
Prime, P. J., Carson and Faulconer, JJ., concur.
Note. — Reported in 209 N. E. 2d 909. Rehearing denied 211 N. E. 2d 193.