Court Opinion

ID: 9529696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:53:26.298919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:53.589015
License: Public Domain

*214On Petition for Rehearing
Wickens, J.
By a petition for rehearing it has been pointed out that the trial court did not find and adjudge the annexation ordinance to be invalid.
We agree that the trial court’s judgment held the ordinance neither valid nor invalid, in direct language.
Our affirmance of that judgment means that no error was presented on appeal. It is not an approval of the detailed findings, but concerns only those findings which were said to affect jurisdiction under the Act in question, as raised in the appeal.
We were not asked to construe the judgment and this court is and was powerless to do so. This is said now that the opinion may be considered only in such light.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
Prime, C. J., Smith, P. J., Bierly, Carson, Faulconer, Hunter and Mote, JJ., concur.
Note. — Reported in 212 N. E. 2d 393. Rehearing denied reported in 213 N. E. 2d 349.