Case Name: JANE MONTGOMERY v. GRACE M. BLADES, Administratrix of WILLIAM B. BLADES, Deceased, SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and CITY OF DURHAM
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1943-07-14
Citations: 223 N.C. 331
Docket Number: 
Parties: JANE MONTGOMERY v. GRACE M. BLADES, Administratrix of WILLIAM B. BLADES, Deceased, SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and CITY OF DURHAM.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 223
Pages: 331–333

Head Matter:
JANE MONTGOMERY v. GRACE M. BLADES, Administratrix of WILLIAM B. BLADES, Deceased, SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and CITY OF DURHAM.
(Filed 14 July, 1943.)
Appeal and Error § 43—
Petitions to rehear will be dismissed where the grounds of error assigned are substantially the same as on the former hearing, and no new facts appear, no new authorities cited, and no new positions assumed. Rule 44, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N. C., p. 570.
Sbawell, J., dissenting.
Petition by plaintiff for a rehearing on defendant’s appeal from judgment of the Superior Court of Durham County in this action.
Victor S. Bryant and James R. Patton, Jr., for plaintiff, petitioner.
W. T. Joyner and Hedrick & Hall for Southern Railway Company, respondent.
Claude V. J ones and 8. C. Brawley for City of Durham, respondent.

Opinion:
Sghenck, J.
On 12 May, 1943, petition to rehear was allowed only on the question whether the decision in Montgomery v. Blades, 218 N. C., 680, should be held controlling, and the petition was duly docketed for a rehearing'. Rule 44 (6), Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N. C., 510. On 2 June, 1943, upon examination of petition and briefs filed the petition was dismissed for the reason that the grounds of error assigned in the petition are substantially the same as those argued and passed upon on the former hearing, and no new facts were made to appear, no new authorities were cited and no new positions were assumed. Weston v. Lumber Co., 168 N. C., 98, 83 S. E., 693; Jolley v. Telegraph Co., 205 N. C., 108, 170 S. E., 145.
That the decision in 218 N. C., 680, was duly considered by the Court is manifested in the opinion assailed by these words: "It is contended that the 'law of the case' was written when this case was before us at the fall term of 1940, 218 N. C., 680, 12 S. E. (2d), 217. At that term we held that the demurrer to the complaint should not have been sustained. We are now holding that the demurrer to the evidence in this ease should be sustained. There is no inconsistency in such holdings. 'The case was here before, 210 N. C., 815, on demurrer to the complaint, C. S., 511. It is here now on demurrer to the evidence, C. S., 567. The two are not the same in purpose or result. One challenges the sufficiency of the pleadings; the other the sufficiency of the evidence. In negligence cases, it is proper to sustain a demurrer to the evidence and to enter judgment of nonsuit.' Smith v. Sink, 211 N. C., 725, 192 S. E., 108. When the Smith case, supra, was first before us on demurrer to the complaint, such demurrer was overruled; when before us the second time the demurrer to the evidence was sustained. Exactly the same situation exists in the case at bar." Montgomery v. Blades, 222 N. C., 469.
Petition dismissed.