Case Name: CATHARINE V. BOUCHER v. SARAH BOUCHER ET AL.
Court: Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1881
Citations: 3 MacArth. 453
Docket Number: No. 4140
Parties: CATHARINE V. BOUCHER v. SARAH BOUCHER ET AL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 10
Pages: 453–455

Head Matter:
CATHARINE V. BOUCHER v. SARAH BOUCHER ET AL.
Equity. —
No. 4140.
I. The application for a rehearing is by petition, and not motion. The practice in such case explained.
IT. A rehearing will be denied when the views and facts upon which it is asked were argued, fully considered, and decided at the original hearing.
STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
A decree was passed in this case August 31, 1878, and a motion for a rehearing was filed, without the previous permission of the court, on the 1st day of June following. The motion set forth two points or particulars in which the decree is alleged to be erroneous, and attached to such motion paper is an affidavit of the defendant’s solicitor verifying the facts upon -which it is founded. The eighty- eighth rule directs that- every petition for' a rehearing shall contain the special matter or cause on which a rehearing is applied for, shall be signed by counsel, and the facts therein stated, if not apparent on the record, shall be verified by the oath of the party, or by some other person.
William A. Meloy, for the motion.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Wylie
delivered the opinion of the court, substantially as follows:
It seems from this .motion as if the practice in regard to applying for a rehearing was unsettled. This is not so. The reasons assigned for a rehearing in this case were all argued before the court, and passed upon at the hearing. No facts and no views are now presented which were not then fully considered and decided, and a simple motion is now made to rehear the case as if it were a matter of course. To show what the correct practice is upon an application of this kind, I will read from Alexander's Chancery Practice, 177, where the author says: "It must be apparent that parties cannot be permitted at their pleasure to dispute questions which the court has settled by its previous orders; and the court could not itself reconsider, and, without notice, reverse its opinions once expressed, and made the ground-work of subsequent proceedings, without great surprise, and perhaps doing irremediable injury to parties. Hence the fitness of a rule which requires nothing more than that the party shall ask permission of the court, before he questions the propriety of its judgment."
The first step for a party who desires a rehearing is to present his petition containing a statement of the special matter or cause on which he relies, according to our own rule, and obtain permission to file it. But I read again from the same book, at page 178 : "The application for a rehearing is made by petition, addressed to the chancellor, stating briefly the circumstances of the case, and the supposed errors in the decree, and the grounds of the objections alleged. When the rehearing is asked for the purpose of introducing additional evidence, the petition should be accompanied by the affidavit of the party, verifying these facts, and affirming that they were discovered since the date of the decree, or at a time when they could not be introduced into the cause at the former hearing. The petition should be signed by counsel, or by the party. It is always in the discretion of the court to grant or refuse a rehearing."
It will be seen that a party who loses his case cannot be allowed, as matter of common right, to file a mere motion for a rehearing, and prpceedings in a court ought not to be delayed by such application, unless the leave of the court is first obtained. Besides, this case has been before the court many years, and involved in expensive litigation, without profit to any one, and the view and facts used on this application have all been considered and adjudicated. The motion on its merits, as well as on the ground of its irregularity, must be denied.