Court Opinion

ID: 5435593
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-08 17:53:53.068854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:31:49.071936
License: Public Domain

By the Court, Currey, J., on petition for rehearing.
The decision and judgment in this case was rendered early in September, eighteen hundred and sixty-four. About the tenth of that month, a written notice of such decision, as appears by proof before us, was personally served on the attorney for the respondents. On the thirtieth of the same month a petition was filed by new attorneys and counsel on behalf of respondents for a rehearing. Since then, and during the present term of the Court, the relators’ attorneys have appeared and objected to the hearing and entertaining of this petition, on the ground that, as the case was originally commenced, *653tried and determined in this Court, the judgment rendered cannot be reviewed on petition for a rehearing.
By the amended Constitution, power was granted to the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus, certiorari and prohibition, and it was by authority of the constitutional provision referred to that this Court, upon proper proceedings instituted, assumed to act in the premises. Our judgment in the case was that of a Court of original jurisdiction, and for the correction of any error which we may commit in such cases the party aggrieved must pursue the course prescribed by the Practice Act in like cases arising in the District Courts, so far as may be. It is unnecessary to refer to the particular provisions of the Act specifying the course to be pursued in order to obtain a re-examination of a case by the same Court of original jurisdiction, after one decision made therein. The course prescribed by the statute has not been followed by the respondents in this case, and therefore the petition filed cannot be entertained.
It is therefore ordered that the petition for a rehearing be denied.
Mr. Justice Rhodes expressed no opinion.