Court Opinion

ID: 9774155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:10:19.085611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:03.014516
License: Public Domain

ON Petition to Rehear.
Counsel for R. Y. Foster have filed a very arresting petition to rehear in which counsel, with due deference to the opinion of this Court, filed on December 9, 1955, suggests that we have filed an opinion which itself is inconsistent. It is urged quite forcibly, that since we have held there was an inconsistency between the verdicts as to Mr. and Mrs. Chase against Mr. Foster, the same rule would necessarily apply to the verdicts in the cases of Mr. and Mrs. Berry.
We have given this petition due consideration but on examination of the assignments of error which accompany the petition for certiorari we find that there is no assignment of error directed to the action of the Court of Appeals in regard to the verdicts with reference to Mr. and Mrs. Berry. The only assignment embodying the
*358question of inconsistency is No. 5, which related solely to the verdicts with reference to Mr. and Mrs. Chase.
Obviously, we cannot consider this question now because the Supreme Court does not review a case on writ of certiorari as if on a broad appeal. Brenizer v. Nashville C. & St. L. Ry., 156 Tenn. 479, 3 S. W. (2d) 1053, 8 S. W. (2d) 1099. This Court reviews the action of the Court of Appeals for its alleged erroneous action stated in the assignments of error.
Accordingly, the petition to rehear must be overruled.