Case ID: ala_200/html/0192-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SAYRE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(75 South. 940)
    Ex parte MOBILE LIGHT & R. CO.
    (1 Div. 981.)
    (Supreme Court of Alabama.
    May 31, 1917.)
    1. Certiorari t&wkey;39 — Time for Filing.
    A petition for certiorari not filed within 15 ■days of the overruling of petitioner’s application for rehearing' in the Court of Appeals as required by court rule 42 (175 Ala. xx) will he dismissed.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Certiorari, Cent. Dig. §§ 57, 60-63.]
    2. Certiorari <&wkey;40' — Time for Filing.
    Acts 1915, p. 606, as to> furnishing certified copy of the opinions of the Court of Appeals within five days after the decision is rendered, and as to giving notice within five days after the rendition of the decision to the attorney, has no effect upon the operation of rule 42 (175 Ala. xx), as to time for making application for certiorari to review judgment of the Court of Appeals.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Certiorari, Cent. Dig. § 58.]
    Certified Questions to Court of Appeals.
    Suit between, the Mobile Light & Railroad Company and one Copeland and others. On application of the company for writ of certiorari.
    Petition dismissed.
    Harry T. Smith & Caffey, of Mobile, for appellant.
    F. K. Hale, Jr., of Mobile, for appellee.
   SAYRE, J.

This application having been submitted to the whole court, it is adjudged and ordered that the petition be dismissed for the reason that it was not filed within 15 days of the overruling of petitioner’s application for rehearing in the Court of Appeals as required by rule 42 (175 Ala. xx). The court is of opinion that the act of September 15, 1915 (Acts, p. 606), has no effect upon the operation of the rule.

‘The writer, considering beforehand' and doubting the propriety of .the decision thus established (for which reason he brought the case to a conference of all the judges), had prepared an opinion on the meritorious question presented by the petition, and, sustaining the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals, preferred to put the result on that ground. He now acquiesces in the court’s disposition of the matter.

Petition for certiorari dismissed.

All the Justices concur.