Court Opinion

ID: 9833940
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:10:24.920448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:09.607224
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
[9,10] On April 25th the appellant filed a motion for a rehearing in this case, and on April 27th he filed what is styled an “amended motion” for a rehearing. Both of these instruments were filed within the time permitted by law for filing such motions. It has not been customary in this court for two motions for a rehearing to be filed by the same appellant in the same appeal. The appellant should probably be conceded the right to amend his motion for a rehearing, if done within the time limit; but such amendment will be treated by this court as a substitute for the original. We cannot permit the practice of filing as many different motions in separate instruments as the parties may feel inclined to write. We shall therefore dismiss the original and consider only the amended motion.
[11 ] The point is made that the writer did not hear the oral argument when this case was presented to this court. That is'true; but the case in all of its phases was thoroughly discussed by all the members of the court, and those who did hear the argument fully concur in the disposition made of the appeal. There is nothing in the motion which has not been fully considered heretofore.
Upon a consideration of the whole ease, we feel that the judgment rendered in the court below was the proper one. The motion is therefore overruled.