Court Opinion

ID: 9442417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 18:46:30.544368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:05.517239
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
HOLMES, Circuit Judge.
We assure counsel that whatever injury was done appellee by the failure of his brief to reach us in time has been repaired by our diligence in the consideration of his petition for rehearing and brief thereon. In the latter brief is cited the case of Foster Bros. Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., on rehearing, 4 Cir., 90 F.2d 948, which held that the court was without power to grant a rehearing after the mandate was issued and the term of court had expired. That case is not applicable here, because in this instance the mandate was recalled and the petition for rehearing granted at the same term as that in which the original judgment on appeal was rendered.
As to the six per cent interest item, we only meant to hold that the appellants were entitled to legal interest under the state law, whatever the correct rate may be. We do not think either justice or equity requires that the doctrine of laches be applied against appellants in this case.
We accept the correction as to dates set forth in appellee’s motion for rehearing. The date of July 6, 1934, as used in the court’s opinion, should now be changed to the date that the Secretary of State can-celled the oil company’s charter. The petition for rehearing is denied.
WALLER, Circuit Judge, dissenting.