Court Opinion

ID: 9648136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:04:28.085258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:56.668936
License: Public Domain

On Petition to Rehear
Felts, Justice.
Delta Loan & Finance Company of Tennessee, Inc., has filed an earnest petition to rehear, and learned counsel for it have made an able argument. It is, however, only a reargument of matters already thoroughly argued by counsel, and considered and determined by us.
The petition points out no matter of law or fact overlooked but only reargues matters which counsel say were erroneously decided by us after argument and full consideration.
“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. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 125 Tenn. 658, 691, 148 S.W. 671, 680. Gulf, M. & O. R. Co. v. Underwood, 182 Tenn. 467, 476, 187 S.W.2d 777, 780; Colbaugh v. State, 188 Tenn. 103, 112, 216 S.W.2d 471.)
The petition to rehear is denied at petitioner’s cost.
*717On Second Petition to Rehear
The Delta, Loan & Finance Company of Tennessee, Inc., has filed a second petition to rehear, asserting that our decision denied it its day in court and deprived it of due process under the Constitutions of the United States and of Tennessee.
Petitioner sought a review of the official action of respondent, as head of a department of our State Glov-ernment, located at the Capitol, whose official situs and residence is in Davidson County. Petitioner could have had its day in court and pursued its remedy of review by suing the Commissioner in the county of his official residence.
Instead, petitioner filed against respondent in Shelby County a petition for the statutory writ of cer-tiorari, for a review “de novo” of the official action of respondent Commissioner, whose situs is in Davidson County. Under the rule long established by our decisions, this statutory writ of certiorari could be maintained only in the county of the situs of respondent, as the tribunal or board whose action was sought to be reviewed. McKee v. Board of Elections, 173 Tenn. 269, 272-273, 117 S.W.2d 752, and the numerous cases these cited.
We think petitioner had no constitutional right to have this long-established rule overruled for its benefit and that in following that rule, we did not deny petitioner any constitutional right.
The second petition to rehear is overruled at petitioner’s cost.