Court Opinion

ID: 9868514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:38:56.771443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:50.481425
License: Public Domain

ON Petition to Reheae..
A very earnest petition to rehear has been filed, which challenges the conclusion formerly announced by the court. Much of the argument contained in the petition was made in Railroad v. Ray, supra.
We feel obliged to adhere to the result reached by reason of the provisions of chapter 65 of the Acts of 1885. It was apparently the intention of the legislature by that act to require that motions for a new trial, motions in arrest, etc,, should be made and disposed of also within thirty days after judgment entered, and that, if an appeal was not prayed within this thirty days, the judgment should be executed. This was obviously the view of the statute entertained by the court in Ellis & Gresham v. Ellis, supra.
The necessities of the situation, however, forced the court in Railroad v. Ray, supra, to construe the statute to mean that, if motions for a new trial, motions in arrest, etc., were entered within thirty days, they might be disposed of at the convenience.of the court and an appeal allowed within thirty days after such disposition.
In view of the history of this legislation, we do not feel authorized to read into the statute anything further, nor to go beyond Railroad v. Ray.
We do not understand ourselves to have intimated herein that, upon a motion for a new trial being overruled, the judgment .was effective from the date of its *379original entry. It has been otherwise ruled in Dunn v. State, supra. We did say that it would defeat the object of the act of 1885 if it were held that entering the motion for a new trial postponed the judgment for all purposes. Upon reconsideration, we think this is true, and that, giving effect to the act of 1885, any motion which challenges the judgment must he entered at least within thirty days after the entry of judgment.
Let the petition to rehear be denied.