Court Opinion

ID: 9828304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:16:58.605167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:47.057889
License: Public Domain

. Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee urges with vigor that we erred in holding that the knowledge which the court found, and which the evidence sustains, that appellee’s mother, before her death, had of the existence of the will, should be imputed to appellee. He cites in support of this contention the additional case of Abrams et al. v. Ross’ Estate et al., 250 S. W. 1019, by the Commission of Appeals, approved by the Supreme Court, In this case the court says:
“If any of the children of George C. Tennille, the immediate legatees under said will, knew or by the exercise of ordinary care could have known of the existence thereof, he or she was *796in default. If any such legatee afterwards died, such default would bar his or her descendents from any right to have such will probated.”
Appellee thinks the holding contained in the quotation was blit obiter dicta, and that the decisions cited in the opinion do not sustain the holding. We do not find that the decisions referred to in the cited case are given in support of this holding, nor are we certain that the holding is obiter dicta. At any rate, we believe the holding is in accord with the authorities cited in our original opinion, and we find none contrary thereto.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.