Vigilante v. Accor

Knight, P. J.,

This is the second time this case has been before the court in banc. Upon our first consideration of the answer we discovered that one of the necessary defendants, Harry Accor, had not been served with the petition; therefore we continued the case until the February argument court. The record now shows service on Accor, and we have before us the questions of law raised in the answer. The facts are set forth in our prior opinion filed December 24,1937, and it is unnecessary to repeat them at this time.

The sole question of law raised is whether petitioners have any legal right to…