Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Greenhood
Decision Date | 30 September 1895 |
Citation | 41 P. 851,16 Mont. 395 |
Parties | MERCHANTS' NAT. BANK v. GREENHOOD et al. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
On motion for rehearing. Denied.
In this case a motion for rehearing has been filed and submitted. The appellants ask for a rehearing, in order that they may argue an objection to the judgment as entered in the lower court. The objection which they suggest to the judgment is only as to a portion of the same. This objection is now made for the first time. The record in this case was on file in this court for 17 months before the appeal was heard. The counsel filed briefs covering nearly 400 printed pages. On the argument we extended the time, and gave counsel more than twice as much time for argument than the rule prescribes. With all this time which counsel had to prepare the case, and with the extraordinarily voluminous briefs that were filed, and with the unusual time given to the arguments counsel never suggested that there was the slightest error in the entry of the judgment below. We are not prepared to say that we would never grant a rehearing upon a point that was presented for the first time on the motion for such rehearing, but, under the extraordinary circumstances of this case, we do not feel that we are called upon to entertain the motion. The point presented now is wholly new, and we do not know that it is of great importance. There has been the amplest and the fairest opportunity for counsel to present everything upon which they relied. The remittitur even was sent to the lower court, under rule 15 (36 P. ix.), and was recalled to await the determination of this motion. As to such matters this court said, in Mining Co. v Holter, 1 Mont. 429: "A rehearing will not be granted in an equity cause after it has been remitted to the court below to carry into effect the decree of the court above according to its mandate." Again, the court said in Davis v. Clark, 2 Mont. 394: In the case of Beck v Thompson (Nev.) 41 P. 1, the court said: In the note to 2 Enc. Pl. & Prac., cited by the Nevada court, the author cites the following cases: Robinson v. Allison (Ala.) 12 South 604; Bank v. Ashmead, 23 Fla. 391, 2 So. 657, 665; Jacksonville, etc., Ry. Co. v. Peninsular Land, etc., Co., 27 Fla. 1, 157, 9 So. 661; Funk v. Rentchler, 134 Ind. 68, 33 N.E. 364, 898; Martin v. Martin, 74 Ind. 207; Lawrence Co. v. Hall, 70 Ind. 477; Yates v. Mullen, 24 Ind. 277; Greater v. Williams, 55 Ind. 461; Rikhoff v. Machine Co., 68 Ind. 388; Heavenridge v. Mondy, 34 Ind. 28; Brooks v. Harris, 42 Iowa, 630; McDermott v. Railway Co., 85 Iowa. 180, 52 N.W. 181; Dietlin v. Egan Com. Pl. 2 Misc. Rep. 52, 21 N.Y.S. 6; Moore v. Beaman, 112 N.C. 558, 17 S.E. 676: Hudson v. Jordan, 110 N.C. 250, 14 S.E. 741; Weld v. Manufacturing Co., 84 Wis 537, 54 N.W. 335; State v. Coulter, 40 Kan. 673, 20 P. 525; Weathersbee v. Farrar, 98 N.C. 255, 3 S.E. 482; Lovenberg v. Bank Tex. Sup. 5 S. W. 816; Schrichte v. Stite's Estate, 127 Ind. 472, 26 N.E. 77; Lawrence Co. v. Hall, 70 Ind. 469; Bitting v. Ten Eyck, 82 Ind. 421: Coleman v. Keels, 31 S.C. 601, 9 S.E. 735; Underwood v. Sample, 70 Ind. 450; Porter v. Choen, 60 Ind. 388; Railroad Co. v. Huff, 19 Ind. 315; Kellogg v. Cochran, 87 Cal. 192, 25 P....
To continue reading
Request your trial