Wall v. Wall

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellees contend that we erred' in the original opinion in denying their propositions, first, that the guardian had the right to purchase the land, including the undivided interest of her ward, because the guardian had an interest in it which she had the right to protect, and, secondly, that, even if the sale was void as to Pearl Denniston, the ward of Mrs. Wall, it was not void as to the other owners of undivided interests.

In view of the earnestness with which the eminent counsel for appellees urge these contentions, we have again reviewed the entire record and the…