Case Name: WILLIAMS v. CONGER
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1888-10-22
Citations: 131 U.S. 390
Docket Number: No. 105
Parties: WILLIAMS v. CONGER.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 131
Pages: 390–391

Head Matter:
WILLIAMS v. CONGER.
EEEOE TO THE CIRCUIT COUET OF THE UNITED STATES FOE THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.
No. 105 of October Term, 1887. —
Decided October 22, 1888.
A renewal of an application for a rehearing after the close of the term at which judgment was rendered, and for reasons which have been passed upon by the court, is not in order, and does not commend itself to the favorable consideration of the court.
This was a petition to correct a clerical mistake in the opinion of this court, delivered April 2, 1888, Williams v. Conger, 125 U. S. 397, citing in support of the power to make the amendment Bank of Kentucky v. Wistar, 3 Pet. 431. To this petition was appended a petition for a rehearing which had been presented and overruled at October Term, 1887,. accompanied by a “ demand upon the court ” to give it a hearing.
Mr. Eugene Williams for both petitions.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Bradley
delivered the opinion of the court.
Leave to file a motion for rehearing in this case is asked for on the ground of clerical error in the opinion. A motion for rehearing was made at the last term upon precisely the same brief now sought to be filed, and notwithstanding the alleged misconception in the opinion of the point made by the plaintiff in error, the court was satisfied with the conclusion it had reached, • and that no modification of the judgment was required, and no rehearing was necessary or called for. The motion was therefore denied. The persistent renewal of the application at this time, after the close of the term at which judgment was rendered, and especially upon the same reasons once overruled, is not in order, and does not recommend itself to the favorable consideration of the court.