Court Opinion

ID: 6546544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:20:01.110779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:55:58.985507
License: Public Domain

on second rehearing. Per Curiam. On the 3d day of August, Guy Murphy, receiver, presented a petition for a rehearing. His grounds were as follows: “That the bank, by agreeing that the evidence in No. 6,616 be treated as depositions, waived any objection it might make to its not being made part of the record by bill of exceptions. “That the failure to brief case No. 6,616 by the bank was due to the negligence of its counsel. “That the evidence in No. 6,247 was taken orally in open court, but is not made part of the record by bill of exceptions, and the decree of the chancellor therein should be affirmed as is similarly held by the court in No. 6,616.” He now shows to the court that his attorney, on the 26th of August, took the transcripts of said cases out of the office of the clerk of this court in order that he might brief his said motion for rehearing, and that the grip containing the same was stolen; and he asks time in which to furnish the court with additional transcripts in lieu of the ones lost, and to prepare briefs, and says it will be about four weeks before the transcripts can be supplied. The court would be inclined to grant the petition for time if the motion for rehearing could be availing; but the matters now sought to be reviewed were thoroughly and exhaustively considered by the court, and are discussed in the opinion. The transcripts were examined carefully by the judges in consultation, and the conclusion was reached after the most patient and careful investigation. For this reason, the petition for time is denied, and the motion for rehearing is overruled.