Royal Academy of Beauty Culture & Royal Beauty Shop, Inc. v. Wallace

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Emmert, J.

The appellee’s petition for rehearing asserts the court erred in interpreting the effect of Clause 7 of §3-2601, Burns’ 1946 Replacement, as to a tort claimant being entitled to the appointment of a receiver, and her briefs allege that the opinion in this appeal is in conflict with Ratcliff v. Ratcliff (1942), 219 Ind. 429, 39 N. E. 2d 435; West v. Reeves (1934), 207 Ind. 404, 190 N. E. 431, 193 N. E. 375; Sallee v. Soules (1907), 168 Ind. 624, 81 N. E. 587. Of course the language in the opinion on this appeal must be construed in connection with the facts…