Court Opinion

ID: 9824361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 10:42:44.575167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:43.631912
License: Public Domain

*237BRANSON, V. (A J.
A motion was tiled herein on November 22, 1924, asking this eonrt to adhere to the original opinion filed in this canse January 29, 1924.
dt appears from the motion and the record that on said last-named date an opinion was filed herein, as published iu 229 Pacific Reporter at page 73. That thereafter mandate on said opinion was issued to the district court, and the judgment, thereof was entered, as said opinion and mandate directed. That the judgment s-o rendered was satisfied by the defendant, bank, and subsequently thereto a motion was filed in this court to recall the mandate,- the order spreading the same of record having been vacated by the district court. That later, on said motion, this court on November 18. 1924. modified said opinion by reversing said cause for. a new trial.
The relief now sought by the instant motion is that the opinion (as published' in the above cited Pacific) be adhered to, not only as being a proper and correct opinion, but for the further reason that this court had lost jurisdiction, for that there is no showing made that the mandate had been inadvertently or fraudulently issued, and that therefore there was no authority here to modify the opinion as was done on said November 18. 1924.
On reviewing this cause, the court is of the opinion that the motion now beiore the court should be sustained, and that the opinion and judgment, of this court should be as set out in the opinion published in the Pacific above cited.
NICHOLSON. O. J.. and HARRISON J.T., MASON. PHELPS. LESTER, HUNT, CLARK, and RILEY, concur.