Hamilton v. Hamilton

On Motion for Rehearing.

The inference drawn by us that the original judgment, and not the one entered nunc pro tunc, was probably the one rendered by 'the court, was not necessary to our decision in the case, and probably should not have been stated.

We were in error in stating that testimony offered to show that the relation of attorney and client between appellant and Mr. Kingsbury had ceased before the motion for judgment nunc pro tunc was filed, should have been admitted. A further examination of the record has shown us that this testimony was hearsay.

We adhere to our opinion that under…