Court Opinion

ID: 9868447
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:35:30.525221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:50.473251
License: Public Domain

ON Petition por Writ op Error and to Rehear.
This cause was heard on an appeal taken from an order of December 5, 1946, and an opinion rendered by this Court on that appeal on May 3, 1947. On May 23, 1947, petition for writ of error was filed in the cause and on May 28, 1947, petition to rehear the former appeal, on which the opinion had been rendered on May 3,1947, was filed. This novel procedure is not supported by any authority and we believe none can he found.
Review by appeal or by writ of error is open to every litigant as a matter of right. But these methods are alternative and mutually exclusive, for the reasons stated and on the authorities given in Crowe v. Birmingham & N. W. R. Co., 156 Tenn. 349, 1 S. W. (2d) 781. On the authority of that case, therefore, we overrule the petition for writ of error.
While nominally directing itself to the opinion delivered by us on May 3, 1947, the petition to rehear makes a lengthy argument against the motion to dismiss the appeal which we considered fully in that opinion. Prior to our opinion of May 3rd, the appellant had ample opportunity to make a response to the motion, hut ignored that opportunity and chose to make no defense, as we noted in our opinion. Under these circumstances we think it clear that the appellant waived his right to argue the motion; and that as we found it valid, it was properly *102sustained. To hold otherwise would be to condone a practice which would make litigation interminable. Andrews v. Crewshaw, 51 Tenn. 151.
Finally, on account of the persistence of counsel and although the record is not before us for further review, we have carefully read the bill and the demurrers thereto. "We think the Chancellor was clearly correct in holding (1) that the complainant had no such interest in the property as entitled him to the declaration sought by the bill, and (2) that on the facts stated in the bill he was not entitled to an injunction against the public officials made defendants thereto.
The petition for writ of error and the petition to rehear are denied.
All concur.