Court Opinion

ID: 9541023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:21:49.954188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:18.462600
License: Public Domain

*261ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Wiltrout, C. J.
Appellant insists that we erroneously assumed that there was evidence that the will was found among decedent’s effects.
Appellant says: “The record discloses that on a search of decedent’s residence, no instrument purporting to be a Will of the decedent, other than Proponent’s Exhibit ‘A’, was discovered. The Appellate Court has inferred from this purely negative statement that Proponent’s Exhibit ‘A’ was discovered there.” and “Upon this inference, the Appellate Court predicates a second inference . . . that decedent effected such mutilation and that he intended thereby to revoke such will.”
Appellant argues that an inference may not be based upon another inference.
It is true that the evidence as to the finding of the will is stated negatively, but it is a negative pregnant. It is such a form of negative expression as may imply, or carry with it, an affirmative. Fields v. The State (1892), 184 Ind. 46, 32 N. E. 780.
In Orey v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of N. Y. (1939), 215 Ind. 305, 19 N. E. 2d 547, it was also contended that an inference cannot be built upon another inference. The Court stated: “It has often been said that there is a rule of láw to that effect, but the statements are so interspersed with recognition of exceptions that we must conclude with Professor Wigmore that: ‘There is no such rule; nor can be.’ ”
Petition for rehearing denied.
Note. — Reported in 96 N. E. 2d 353.