Case ID: hopk-ch_1/html/0112-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Harrison v. Elias Hull and others.
    1824. March 26.
    A rehearing under the 70th rule of the court, is of course. No notice of the petition is necessary; nor will the court give an order to stay proceedings, as the rehearing stays them of course.
    Mr. Spencer presented a petition for the rehearing of t^.g cause unc[er t)-ie 70th rule of the court—it having been submitted to the court without argument. A decretal order ^een ma(je) on which the other party was now proceed-lg to take an account before the master.
    As the practice was not established in these cases, Mr. Spencer asked for directions from the court. 1. Whether notice of the petition was necessary to be given to the opposite party. 2d. Whether an order was necessary to suspend the proceedings before the master.
   The Court

thought no notice was necessary. The rehearing in cases under this rule, is of course, and can not be opposed. Neither will the court grant an order to suspend proceedings before the master. The Rehearing suspends them of course.