Case Name: Albert Paul Smith et al. Admrs. v. Franklin Dennison, Receiver
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1882-03
Citations: 101 Ill. 657
Docket Number: 
Parties: Albert Paul Smith et al. Admrs. v. Franklin Dennison, Receiver.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 657–658

Head Matter:
Albert Paul Smith et al. Admrs. v. Franklin Dennison, Receiver.
At Ottawa, March Term, 1882.
1. Rehearing—second application by the same party. A second petition for the rehearing of a cause in this court by the same party will not be entertained.
2. Nor is the application of this rule affected by the fact that the court, upon denying the original petition for a rehearing, may have modified the language of its opinion, or even changed the grounds of its decision. It is the decision, of the court, not so much the reasons given for that decision, that is the subject for reconsideration upon an application for a rehearing, and when the decision originally made is adhered to upon such reconsideration, although the reasons given for it may have been modified, it will not be open to further review at the instance of the same party.
The original opinion in this case was filed in vacation preceding the September term, 1881. The defendant in error filed his petition for a rehearing of the cause, under the 0 rules of this court, which was considered at that term, and denied, the court, however, taking occasion to modify, in some respects, the language of the opinion previously filed, but adhering to its decision already made. Subsequently, the defendant in error filed his second petition for a rehearing to the present term.
Mr. J. L. High, for the defendant in error, insisted that the right to present this second petition was given by the 41st rule of this court, this being the first application for a rehearing in respect to the modified opinion.

Opinion:
Scott, J.:
This second petition for a rehearing can not he entertained. It has never been the practice in this court to permit the filing of a second petition of this character by the same party. Garrick et al. v. Chamberlain, 100 Ill. 476. It matters not that upon the denial of the first petition the court saw proper to modify the language of its opinion previously filed. It is the decision of the court, not so much the reasons which may have been assigned for that decision, that is the subject for reconsideration upon an application for the rehearing of a cause. If the decision originally made is adhered to on such reconsideration, although the reasons given for it may be modified, or the grounds of the decision changed, it will not be open to further review at the instance of the same party. -
Petition dismissed.
Dickey, J.:
I think that sometimes-a second- petition for a rehearing, by the same party, may well be entertained. I do not object so much to the application of the rule in this particular case, as the modification of the opinion does not seem to be very material, though I think the petition ought to have been simply denied, not dismissed. Cases may arise where, upon an application for a rehearing,' although the original decision of the court be adhered to, the grounds of that decision may be-so essentially changed, that it"would be highly proper, even at the instance of the same party, to entertain a second petition for rehearing.