Court Opinion

ID: 9670585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:22:52.72336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:05.378878
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellee has filed a motion to strike appellant’s application for rehearing because the application was not written on transcript or folio paper, but on legal cap paper.
Appellee contends that his motion must be granted because of the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 36, the pertinent provisions of which are as follows:
“All applications to this court to admit bail, or for the writ of habeas corpus, mandamus, or other zvrit or process depending on motion of this court, * * *, shall be presented on folio paper, of the pattern now required by the rule for ordinary transcripts, so that the same may be -in suitable form for binding; and no application shall be heard that is not so presented.” (Italics ours.)
The word “process” as used in the rule, supra, is used in its ordinary legal sense, which renders it synonymous with “writ.” See Parks v. Bryant, 132 Ala. 224, 31 So. 593.
While the verbiage found in applications for rehearings is often in the language of a motion, we do not think that the true character of an application can be altered by such draftsmanship.
An application for rehearing amounts to merely a friendly suggestion to an appellate court informing it of possible errors in its rendered opinion. 4 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 1428.
An application for rehearing is not entered on the records of a court unless so ordered. 4 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 1430.
Furthermore, this court may of its own motion, during the term, restore a cause to the rehearing docket for further consideration, Kinney v. Pollak, 225 Ala. 229, 142 So. 390.
An application for rehearing is not a writ or process, depending on motion of this court, required to be on folio paper under the terms of Rule 36, supra.
Certainly nothing in the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 38, pertaining specifically to applications for rehearing, can be *570deemed to require that such applications be on folio paper.
Even in its technical legal aspects we find no merit in appellee’s contention.
Further, examination of the records of this court (and we might add, of the Supreme Court) reveal that through ■the years, it is rare that an application for rehearing its filed on folio- paper. These applications written on legal cap paper have continuously and through all the years been received and considered by both courts. Such historical practice, procedure and custom should not ibe overturned without fair warning to the practicing bar, even if appellee’s motion contained merit, which we think is lacking under any theory.
Appellee’s motion to' strike appellant’s application for rehearing is therefore denied.
Upon consideration of appellant’s application for rehearing, we are likewise of the opinion that it too is without merit, and that the points raised therein were adequately covered in our original opinion. Appellant’s application for rehearing is therefore denied.
Appellee’s motion to strike appellant’s application for rehearing denied.
Appellant’s application for rehearing denied.