Jones v. Fox
| Citation | 2 So. 853,23 Fla. 462 |
| Parties | JONES and others v. FOX. |
| Decision Date | 15 September 1887 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Upon petition for rehearing by appellees. See ante, 700.
Syllabus by the Court
A petition purporting to be a petition for rehearing, but which is in substance a reargument of the case, will not be considered by this court, or be made a part of the record in the case.
A. W. Cockrell & Son, for petitioners.
We have in this case a petition that purports to be a petition for rehearing. On reading it, we find it to be not what its name implies, but in substance a reargument, with citation of authorities. The practice of this court, as settled by Smith v. Croom, 7 Fla. 180, and Bank v. Ashmead, ante, 665, (decided at this term,) forbids the consideration of such a petition. Counsel must confine themselves, in framing a petition for rehearing, to the matters which the rule prescribes for grounds of application, viz., a concise statement of the particular omission or cause for which the judgment is supposed to be erroneous. More than this is not permitted.
The court refusing to consider this petition, an order will be entered accordingly; the petition, in the language of the rule, 'not (to become) a part of the record' in the case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. City of Lakeland
... ... correctness of its conclusions upon points in its decision ... which were considered and passed upon, and which merely ... reargues a cause in advance of a permit from the court for ... such argument, is violative of the rule and should be denied ... without further consideration. Jones v. Fox, 23 Fla ... 462, 2 So. 853; Hull v. Burr, 58 Fla. 475, 50 So ... 768; Malsby v. Gamble, 61 Fla. 327, 54 So. 766; ... Stewart v. Preston, 80 Fla. 479, 86 So. 348; ... Payne v. Ivey, 83 Fla. 436, 93 So. 143 ... Court's ... judgment, not its opinion or decision, may ... ...
-
Florida Land Rock Phosphate Co. v. Anderson
...and consideration by the court. We must respectfully refuse to consider either petition, for each one is violative of the rule. C. H. Jones & Bro. v. Fox, supra. We again attention to the fact that, in framing a petition for a rehearing, the requirements of the rule must be complied with, a......
-
Lake v. State
... ... We do ... not think this contention is well grounded. A ... 'rehearing' is a second consideration of a cause for ... the sole purpose of calling to the attention of the court any ... error, omission, or oversight that may have been committed in ... the first consideration. Jones v. Fox, 23 Fla. 462, ... 2 So. 853; Hull v. Burr, 58 Fla. 475, 50 So. 768; ... Texas Company v. Davidson, 76 Fla. 475, 80 So. 558 ... Rule 25 governing practice and procedure before this court in ... effect provides that a rehearing must be applied for within ... thirty days from the filing ... ...
-
Mann v. Etchells
... ... that were expressly considered and passed upon and that ... reargues the cause in advance of a permit from the court for ... such argument is violative of the rule and will be denied ... without further consideration. See, also, Finlayson v ... Lipscomb, 15 Fla. 558; Jones v. Fox, 23 Fla ... 462, 2 So. 853; Hull v. Burr, 58 Fla. 475, 50 So ... 768; DaCosta v. Dibble, 45 Fla. [225], 237, 33 So ... 466; Malsby v. Gamble, [132 Fla. 418] 61 Fla. 327, 54 ... So. 766; Stewart v. Preston, 80 Fla. 479, 86 So ... 348; Sauls v. Freeman, 24 Fla. 225, 4 So. 577; ... ...