Case Name: John B. Fish, Appellant, vs. Georgf Heinlin, Respondent
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1863-07
Citations: 8 Minn. 540
Docket Number: 
Parties: John B. Fish, Appellant, vs. Georgf Heinlin, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 540–541

Head Matter:
John B. Fish, Appellant, vs. Georgf Heinlin, Respondent.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RAMSEY OOUNTY.
Upon a motion for a re-argument of this cause, Held, That where an application for a re-argument is made before judgment entered upon the decision rendered, the Court has the power to grant the same upon sufficient cause shown That the applicant must be able to show some manifest error of fact into which counsel or the Court have iallen in the argument or decision of the caso, as for example that a provision of the statute decisive of the case has by mistake been entirely overlooked, or’that a case has been decided upon a point not raised at all upon the argument, and there be strong reason to believe that the Court has erred in its decision; or, in a cabe where great public interests are involved, and the case has either not been fully argued, or strong additional reasons may be urged to show that the Coui‘t has erred in the ruling.

Opinion:
MOTION FOR RE-ARGUMENT.
By the Court.
ElaNdrau, J.
This case was beard at the July Term of 1862, on an appeal from an order denying a new trial, and is reported in volnme 8 of the reports of this Court at page 70. The order was affirmed after a full consideration of all the points made by tbe Appellant. Nothing new is pre- sen ted on tins motion for a re-argument. The case is a perfectly plain one, and could not hare been disposed of differently by this Court upon the record as sent to us from the Court below. There is nota single suggestion urged on this motion that brings the case within the rule that we have laid down for granting re-arguments. No mistake of fact occurred ; no point was overlooked ; nothing is presented for our consideration that was not before us on the original argument, and we see no .error in our former decision. See 8 M. R., 70.
The motion is denied,