Court Opinion

ID: 9826917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 16:58:17.324522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:19.193877
License: Public Domain

On Petitions for Rehearing.
PAW, P. J.
An opinion was handed down and a decree entered on a former day of the present term affirming the decrees of the chancery court in the above-styled consolidated cases.
The decrees thus affirmed were adverse to the appellants B. R. Boyd and Meadows Bros. & Etter, and each of these two appellants has filed a separate petition for a rehearing.
Each of these petitions is of considerable length and consists of a reargument of propositions presented by the assignments of error, briefs and written arguments of counsel, and, in part, by oral argument at the bar, and to all of which the court gave attention in the consideration and decision of the ease. We have not found anything in either of these petitions to rehear that was overlooked in our former examination of the record and consideration of the case. ■
The fact that the testimony of each witness and each item of evidence are not mentioned and discussed in the written findings and opinion filed does not mean that the court has overlooked such testimony or such item of evidence. The findings of fact which this court is required to file in chancery cases is a written statement of our conclusions with respect to the determinative facts in issue in each case. > j
“A petition for rehearing should never be used merely for the purpose of rearguing the case on points already considered and determined, unless some new and decisive authority has been discovered, which was overlooked by the court. The office of a petition to rehear is to call the attention of the court to matters overlooked, not to those things which the counsel supposes were improperly decided after full consideration.” Louisville & N. Railroad Co. v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 125 Tenn., 658, 691, 148 S. W., 671, 680.
The petitions for a rehearing are denied and dismissed, at the cost of the respective petitioners.
Crownover and DeWitt, JJ., concur.