Court Opinion

ID: 9864369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 12:54:36.146452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:10:42.068831
License: Public Domain

Holt, J. (On rehearing). In the brief in support of the petition for rehearing the opinion is interpreted as holding that the probate court was without jurisdiction to appoint a curator for the non-resident minors who had an acting guardian in the state of their residence, and a headnote to this case as reported in the Law Reporter (March 17,1941) is to that effect. But there was no intention to overrule or qualify the opinion on the former appeal (198 Ark. 339, 128 S. W. 2d 683) where we recognized the existence of that jurisdiction in a proper case. What we did say is that: “We are of the view, however, that this section, which is § 12 of the act of April 22,1873, p. 185, does not apply in the instant case for the reason that this section does not take into consideration a case, such as the one presented here, in which the minor has a duly appointed and acting guardian in the state of his residence. ’ ’ In other words, § 12 of the act of April 22, 1873, appearing as § 6236, Pope’s Digest, “does not take into consideration a case such as the one presented here” for the reason that there was no occasion or necessity for the appointment of a resident curator. Rehearing denied.