Court Opinion

ID: 9676010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:12:11.29138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:42.544808
License: Public Domain

On. Petition to Rehear
PARROTT, J.
Appellants, J. W. Hamilton, et al. have filed a petition to rehear in which they assert this Court in *126its original opinion overlooked certain important questions of fact and law.
In our consideration of the petition to rehear, we have reread our original opinion and it is our conclusion the petition to rehear asserts no new matter but attempts to reargue those things which were decided in the original opinion.
In the case of Overstreet v. Norman, 44 Tenn. App. 343, 314 S.W.2d 47, 52, Judge Felts of this Court, later Justice Felts of our Supreme Court, aptly set forth the purpose of the petition to rehear by saying the following.
“The office of a petition to rehear is to call attention to the Court of matters overlooked, not to things which counsel supposes were improperly decided after full consideration. A petition which points out no new matter of law or fact overlooked will be denied, Cox v. McCartney, 34 Tenn.App. 235, 243, 236 S.W.2d 736, and cases there cited.”
Thus, the petition to rehear is denied.
McAmis, P. J., and Cooper, J., concur.