Zumpfe v. Piccadilly Realty Co.
| Decision Date | 07 June 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 27000.,27000. |
| Parties | ZUMPFE et al. v. PICCADILLY REALTY Co. et al. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
On petition for rehearing and for modification of mandate.
Petition denied and mandate modified.
For former opinion, see 13 N.E.2d 715.Appeal from Probate Court, Marion County; Smiley N. Chambers, judge.
Smith, Remster, Hornbrook & Smith, Paul Y. Davis, Kurt F. Pantzer, Ernest R. Baltzell, and Wm. G. Sparks, all of Indianapolis, for appellants.
John G. McNutt, of Indianapolis, for appellees.
The appellees have asked for a rehearing and the appellee Smith has presented a verified petition to modify the mandate. After carefully considering the petition for rehearing was are content to let the opinion stand.
The petition to modify the mandate discloses that since March 19, 1936, when the hearing was had in the court below, resultingin the order appealed from, there has been a substantial and material change in the factual situation. It is now made to appear that during the pendency of this appeal all liens against the property of the Piccadilly Realty Company have been discharged; that in June, 1937, a dividend of $4 per share was paid; and in December one of $1 per share was paid on the preferred stock.
This court rendered its opinion herein and entered its mandate upon the situation and facts properly disclosed by the record. No showing having been made of a change in conditions subsequent to the date of the order appealed from, it was assumed that a retrial would disclose the same facts. It was not our purpose to foreclose the parties against a reconsideration on changed conditions.
It is accordingly ordered that the mandate herein (the same being the last paragraph of the original opinion) be and the same is modified to read as follows:
Reversed, with directions to the trial court to set aside its order of January 8, 1937, which denied appellants' cross-petition for a sale of the receivership assets. The trial court is further ordered to grant a rehearing on appellants said cross-petition and to enter such order or orders as to it shall appear to be just and proper, not inconsistent with this opinion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harding v. Brown, 867
...its decision and judgment on the same day. In Zumpfe v. Piccadilly Realty Company (1938), 214 Ind. 282 at 287, 13 N.E.2d 715, 15 N.E.2d 362, 124 A.L.R. 1060, 1068, the Supreme Court elaborated upon the general definition of a 'trial' with reference to Motions for New Trial when it 'It is no......
-
Guthrie v. Blakely
...v. McKinney, 1942, 220 Ind. 462, 44 N.E.2d 344, and Zumpfe v. Piccadilly Realty Co., 1938, 214 Ind. 282, 13 N.E.2d 715, 15 N.E.2d 362, 124 A.L.R. 1060, 124 A.L.R. 1068, both of which are decisions of this court; and Phillips v. Townsend, 1944, 115 Ind.App. 273, 56 N.E.2d 856, and Superior R......
-
Gamester v. Massey
...Greathouse v. McKinney, 1942, 220 Ind. 462, 44 N.E.2d 344; Zumpfe v. Piccadilly Realty Co., 1938, 214 Ind. 282, 13 N.E.2d 715, 15 N.E.2d 362, 124 A.L.R. 1060; Home Electric Light and Power Co. v. Globe Tissue Paper Co., 1896, 145 Ind. 174, 44 N.E. 191; § 2-3201, Burns', 1933 The Court's ord......