Court Opinion

ID: 9691267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:20:08.1604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:14.683836
License: Public Domain

Morris, J.
(On petition for rehearing.) The plaintiff and respondent in a petition for rehearing states that through oversight of counsel, the provision of Section 49-1313 RCND 1943, requiring that there should be included in the full crew specified by the statute “one conductor or pilot” was not considered or discussed in the briefs or argument of counsel and that “Attention was focused entirely upon the statutory requirements with respect to flagging protection.” Respondent now asks us to construe and define those terms as used in the statute. He cites several cases in which the meaning of the term “conductor” is discussed, but none of them refer to the term “pilot” and our own search reveals no case where that term is considered in connection with railroad employment.
Not only has the question now presented not been discussed in the briefs or argument, but it was not presented by the pleadings, nor was it suggested anywhere else in this record, including the transcript. It is raised for the first time in the petition for rehearing.
“The general rule is that this court' will not grant a rehearing upon questions not raised upon the hearing of an appeal either *740ill tlie briefs or in oral argument.” In re Tooz’ Estate, 76 ND 492, 37 NW2d 493.
If this were not tbe general rule, it nevertheless would be impossible to decide this matter, as the record furnishes no factual basis upon which the decision could be made..
The respondent would also reargue the constitutionality of. the statute (Section 49-1313 RCND 1943) as affected by the use of the ballaster under the protection afforded by Rule 99(M). This question is adequately discussed and decided in the opinion. Rehearing denied.
Nuessue, Ch. J., and Christianson, G-rimson and Burke, JJ., concur.