Court Opinion

ID: 9681204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:45:59.843918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:32.630546
License: Public Domain

On Petitions to Rehear
HOWARD, J.
On November 6,1958, petitioners herein filed a 31 page petition to rehear in which they insist that their case was improperly decided. As we view the petition, it contains no matters not heretofore fully considered and determined by us.
Subsequently on November 21, 1958, while the above petition was pending, petitioners filed “Supplemental Petition to Reconsider and to Rehear” based upon two depositions alleged to have been read and filed in evidence upon the jury trial, during which other evidence was introduced, but none was preserved by bill of exceptions. Under these circumstances, in the absence of a duly authenticated bill of exceptions, these depositions are of no determinative value.
Moreover, no effort of suggestion of diminution of record was made “before the case was called for trial” as required by Rule 20 of the Rules of this Court. Lacy v. Rymer, 28 Tenn. App. 180, 187 S. W. (2d) 653; Anderson *723v. Stribling, 15 Tenn. App. 267; Gilreath’s Caruthers History of a Lawsuit, 7th. Ed., Sec. 451, pp. 494, 495.
Tbe office of a petition to rebear is to call tbe attention of tbe Court to matters overlooked, not to those things -which counsel supposes were improperly decided after full consideration. Black v. Love & Amos Coal Co., 30 Tenn. App. 377, 206 S. W. (2d) 432; Mashburn v. Thornton, 35 Tenn. App. 216, 244 S. W. (2d) 173; Hamilton Nat. Bank v. Woods, 34 Tenn. App. 360, 238 S. W. (2d) 109; Louisville & N. Railroad Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 125 Tenn. 658, 691, 149 S. W. 671, 680.
Finally, if rehearings could be had until the litigants on both sides were satisfied, suits would become immortal and decisions be postponed indefinitely. Jenkins v. Eldridge, Fed. Cas. No. 7,267, 3 Story 299; Louisville & N. Railroad Co. v. United State Fidelity & Guaranty Co., supra.
Therefore, the petitions are denied at petitioners’ costs.
McAmis, P. J., and Felts, J., concur.