Camden Fire Ins. Ass'n v. Delaney Moss Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 23 April 1928
• Docket Number: 26770
• Citation: 152 Miss. 342,118 So. 535
• Parties: CAMDEN FIRE INS. ASS'N v. DELANEY MOSS CO., INC.*
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

118 So. 535

152 Miss. 342

CAMDEN FIRE INS. ASS'N v. DELANEY MOSS CO., INC.*

No. 26770

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 23, 1928

(In Banc.)

APPEAL AND ERROR. Suggestion of error will be dismissed, where appellee had opportunity to argue questions on appellant's previous suggestion of error.

Where on appellant's suggestion of error, a reply by appellee was called for by the court, and all questions reargued by means of briefs, so that appellee had every opportunity to fully argue the case, a subsequent suggestion of error filed by him will be dismissed, that there may be an end to litigation. [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

On Suggestion of Error Oct. 1, 1928. Suggestion of Error Dismissed Nov. 5, 1928.

APPEAL from circuit court of Adams county, HON. R. L. CORBAN, Judge.

Action by the Delaney Moss Company, Inc., against the Camden Fire Insurance Association. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded. On suggestion of error. Suggestion of error dismissed.

Suggestion of error dismissed.

Engle & Laub, and Jno. C. Hollingsworth, for appellant.

L. T. Kennedy, for appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM

The judgment here appealed from was affirmed when we first considered the case. Afterwards a suggestion of error was filed by the appellant, to which a reply by the appellee was called for by the court, and the case was then reargued by means of briefs. The case was then reconsidered by this court, its judgment of affirmance was set aside, the judgment of the court below was reversed, and the case was remanded.

The appellee has now filed a suggestion of error, strenuously arguing that the judgment of affirmance was correct, that the judgment setting aside the judgment of affirmance and reversing the judgment of the court below is erroneous, and should be set aside, and the original judgment of affirmance reinstated. All of the questions argued in the suggestion or error were, or should have been, argued both in the original briefs and those filed on the appellant's suggestion of error. The appellee has had every opportunity to fully argue the case, and, should we reconsider it, we would, necessarily, traverse the same ground which we have twice heretofore done.

Should this suggestion of error be sustained, the appellant would have the same right to file another that the appellee had to file this one; so that, unless there is to be an end of litigation, we might...