Court Opinion

ID: 9769959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:09:23.822751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:09.427317
License: Public Domain

Opinion on Petition to Rehear
Appellant has filed an earnest petition to rehear. The petition reargues the matter already thoroughly presented by Counsel and fully considered by us in reaching our original conclusion. Specifically, it is argued we failed to apply the rule announced by this Court in the case of Hancock v. Davidson County, 171 Tenn. 420, 421, 104 S.W.2d 824 (1932). We considered this authority and quoted therefrom in our original opinion.
“A petition for rehearing should never be used merely for the purpose of rearguing the case on points already considered and determined, unless some new and de*353cisive authority has been discovered, which was overlooked by the Court.” Whitaker v. House, 213 Tenn. 61, 372 S.W.2d 194, (1963).
The petition also requests us to amplify our opinion by now holding'petitioner, from the date he assumed the additional duties under the Act until it was declared unconstitutional by this Court, acted as a de facto officer and entitled to compensation from the State as provided by the Act.
This matter was not considered and adjudged by the Chancellor.
This Court will not grant relief which was hot sought in the trial court, and sought for the first time on a petition to rehear in this Court. City of Nashville v. Wilson, 88 Tenn. 407, 12 S.W. 1082 (1889).
‘‘The jurisdiction of this court is exclusively appellate, and it can only pass upon matters which the record shows have been considered and adjudged by the trial court from which the case has been appealed. ’ ’ Railroad v. Johnson, 14 Tenn. 632, 88 S.W. 169 (1905); Rule 14(5) of the Buies of the Supreme Court.
The petition is denied at the cost of petitioner.