Court Opinion

ID: 9682727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:15:30.241618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:38.670684
License: Public Domain

On Petition to Eehear.
Swepstou, Justice.
A petition to rehear has been filed in behalf of Miller Brothers Company, Inc. Opposing counsel reply *698that the petition should be dismissed because of failure to comply with Rule 32 of this Court, requiring the petition to be filed within 10 days of the filing of the opinion of the Court. The opinion was filed on June 6, 1958, and the petition was filed on June 16, 1958. This is within the 10 days. T.C.A. sec: 1-302 provides that in computing time the first day is omitted and the last day is included.
The petition to rehear is a re-argument of the matters presented to and considered by the Court heretofore with emphasis by counsel upon the case of Drinnon v. Pope, 202 Tenn. 684, 308 S.W.2d 424. Therefore, the petition must be overruled.
As a last resort, petitioner for the first time asserts that the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed because the bill of exceptions fails to include the words “this is all the evidence”, or other words of like import.
We think first, that this insistence comes too late. Both counsel have proceeded in this Court on the assumption that the record is complete, the Court has worked the record, written and released its opinion. See Tennessee Oil Co. v. McCanless, 178 Tenn. 683, 704, 157 S.W.2d 267, 162 S.W.2d 1081.
Secondly, we think the record includes a much broader statement on page 61, wherein it is said:
“The foregoing is all the proceedings had upon the trial of this cause.”
That statement appears above the signature of the trial judge approving the bill of exceptions. It is a *699broader term than the statement that this is all the evidence.
See Black’s Law Dictionary for the definition of the word “procedure”, which is defined as follows:
“Procedure is the machinery for carrying on the suit, including pleading, process, evidence and practice, whether in the trial court or the appellate court, or in the process by which causes are carried to appellate courts for review, or in laying the foundation for such review.” Jones v. Erie R. Co., 106 Ohio St. 408, 140 N.E. 366, 367.
Further:
“* * * including all possible steps in an action from its commencement to the execution of judgment.” Erwin v. U. S., D.C., 37 F. 470, 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Morewood v. Hollister, 6 N.Y. 309.
We think the above language brings this situation within the spirit of Yates v. State, 18 Tenn. 549; and Woods v. State, 47 Tenn. 335.
The petition to rehear is accordingly overruled.
Neil, Chief Justice, not participating.