Court Opinion

ID: 9619213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:23:50.609667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:38.755324
License: Public Domain

*363THE COURT.
On petition of defendant Mercer Casualty Company for rehearing after order of dismissal of appeal from judgment.
In addition to petitioner’s statement of reasons offered in support of petition, it is requested that the opinion of this court heretofore filed be amended to “set forth the fact that appellant’s motion for a new trial in the court below was actually argued by counsel for appellant, opposed by counsel for respondent, taken and understood by the trial court as appellant’s motion and not the motion of the General Cab Company, and as such heard and considered, after submission, as a motion for a new trial by appellant, and, finally, by the trial court denied, all without any objection whatever by respondent based on any insufficiency or defect in appellant’s notice of intention to move for a new trial”. It may be assumed that the foregoing quotation is justified by the record, except that in the absence of a notice of intention of defendant Mercer Casualty Company to move for a new trial there could be no such thing as “appellant’s motion for a new trial”. It is for this reason that we are of the opinion that in this case a motion of appellant for new trial was not [lending at any time.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
A. petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on September 5, 1935.