Court Opinion

ID: 9649010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:40:39.473054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:07.094935
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
The appellants complain that we were incorrect when we stated in the fourth paragraph of our opinion that the statement of facts shows that the appointment of the guardian ad litem in this case was at the request of the attorney for the defendants.
We withdraw that statement. In its place we substitute the paragraph which follows:
Mr. Henley testified that he was present in November of 1970 when this case was called for trial (at an earlier setting) and heard the attorney for the defendants ask the court to continue the case because there was no attorney ad litem present. Also, that the defendants’ attorney said the case could not be tried without an attorney ad litem. At this point the trial judge remarked that the defendants’ attorney had told him the same thing when this case had been reset at the last hearing. No controverting testimony was offered as to this matter. The transcript does not contain a motion for continuance filed by the defendants ; it does contain a motion filed by the adult plaintiff asking for appointment of a guardian ad litem for the minor plaintiff and an order dated November 19, 1970, appointing one.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.