Court Opinion

ID: 9660390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:12:21.017768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:19.014908
License: Public Domain

OiT PETITION TO BeHEAE,
Felts, Justice.
The Sunday School Board has filed an able and earnest petition to rehear, asserting that this Court erred in substituting its judgment for that of the State Board of Equalization “on a question of fact” in this case; and that we erred in holding that the terms of the 1935 *618Act (T.C.A. sec. 67-502 (2)) are clear and unambiguous, erred in our construction of it, and erred in folding that the Board’s operations of its parking lots, restaurant and snack bar, were not religious activities, but secular business enterprises; and tbat tbe parts of its property used for such purposes are not exempt under tbat Act.
Tbe record shows we did not substitute our judgment for tbat of tbe State Board on a question of fact. As pointed out in our opinion (page 459), there was no dispute or question of fact, tbe only evidence being tbat offered by tbe Board. Tbe circumstances as to tbe purposes for which tbe properties were used being admitted, it was purely a question of law whether such purposes came within tbe exemption of tbe statute.
In support of tbe petition, learned counsel make an able, forceful and lengthy argument; but it is only a re-argument of matters already thoroughly argued by counsel and fully considered by us in reaching our conclusion. It points out no new matter of fact or law overlooked, but only re-argues things which counsel insist were improperly decided after full consideration.
“A petition for rehearing should never be used merely for the purposes of re-arguing the case on points already considered and determined, unless some new and decisive authority has been discovered, which was overlooked by the court. The office of a petition to rehear is to call the attention of the court to matters overlooked, not to those things which counsel supposes were improperly decided after full consideration” (Louisville & N. Railroad v. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 125 Tenn. 658, 691-693, 148 S.W. 671, 680). Gulf, M. & O. R. Co. v Underwood, 182 Tenn. 467, 476, 187 S.W.2d 777; Memphis St. Ry. Co. *619v. Cooper, 203 Tenn. 425, 437-439, 313 S.W.2d 444; Oliver v. State, 208 Tenn. 692, 698, 348 S.W.2d 325; Rule 32, 209 Tenn. 806, 807.
“ ‘If re-hearings are to be had, until the counsel on both sides are entirely satisfied, we fear that suits would become immortal, and the decision he postponed indefinitely.’ Story’s Eq. Pl., 8th Ed., sec. 421, page 395, note. Compare Andrews v. Crenshaw, 51 Tenn. 151, 153.” Gulf, M. & O. R. Co. v. Underwood, supra, 182 Tenn. 476, 187 S.W.2d 777; Louisville & N. Railroad v. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., supra, 125 Tenn. 692-693, 148 S.W. 671.
The petition to rehear is denied at petitioner’s cost.