Pierce v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.

Citation254 Miss. 806,183 So.2d 190
Decision Date14 February 1966
Docket NumberNo. 43784,43784
PartiesJ. L. PIERCE v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi

L. S. McClaren, McComb, Ramsey, Ramsey & Bodron, Vicksburg, for appellant.

Wise, Smith & Carter, Jackson, John Foster, Robert Mitten, Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

GILLESPIE, Presiding Justice:

Complainant below and appellant here filed an original bill of complaint for a mandatory injunction requiring the Illinois Central Railroad Company to restore transportation pass rights to appellant, and for damages for refusal of the Railroad to recognize his lifetime pass. A hearing was had on bill, answer and proof, after which the court entered a decree denying the relief, and dismissing the bill with prejudice. This decree was entered April 21, 1964. Court adjourned on May 2, 1964, and no appeal was perfected within ninety days from April 21, 1964. On July 15, 1964, appellant filed a motion for rehearing on the grounds of newly discovered evidence. This motion was overruled on December 14, 1964, on the following grounds: (1) it was not timely filed, and (2) if considered as a petition for leave to file a bill of review on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the averments were insufficient to justify granting the petition. On January 19, 1965, appellant filed an appeal bond appealing from a judgment 'recently rendered' by the Chancery Court of Pike County. The entire record was sent to this Court, including the transcript of the evidence on the hearing on the merits. The case is argued by the parties on the merits and on the Railroad's motion to dismiss the appeal.

The first question for our decision is whether the motion for a rehearing filed on July 15, 1964, was filed within the time allowed by law. We hold that the decree dated April 21, 1964, became final when the court adjourned on May 2, 1964, and the motion for rehearing filed thereafter came too late to be considered. There must be an end to litigation somewhere, and there must be a time when the power of the court over its final decree must come to an end. This is fixed as of the end of the term of court at which the final decree is rendered, and a motion for rehearing for newly discovered evidence filed thereafter cannot be considered. Edwards v. Peresich, 221 Miss. 788, 74 So.2d 844 (1954); Griffith, Miss. Chancery Practice Sec. 633 (2d ed. 1950).

Appellant did not perfect an appeal from the final decree of April 21, 1964, within the ninety days allowed by law. The chancellor considered appellant's motion for rehearing as a petition for leave to file a bill of review based upon newly discovered evidence. We entertain this appeal as being from the decree denying appellant's petition for leave to file a bill of review. This brings us to the question whether the petition for leave to file a bill of review on the ground of newly discovered evidence was properly dismissed. We hold that it was for two separate and sufficient reasons.

In the first place, the chancellor correctly found that the evidence which appellant contends was newly discovered consisted, for the most part, of letters which appellant received on February 16, 1964, and the final decree was not entered until April 21, 1964. We affirm the chancellor's finding that the facts claimed to be newly discovered evidence ought to have been brought to the attention of the court before the final decree was rendered. Griffith, Miss. Chancery Practice Sec. 640 (2d ed. 1950).

Secondly, when the facts set up in the petition for leave to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Birkhead v. State, 2013–M–00330
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 22, 2017
    ...436, 452, 106 S.Ct. 2616, 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1982). "There must be an end to litigation somewhere. ..." Pierce v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. , 254 Miss. 806, 810, 183 So.2d 190, 191 (1966). We do no favors for the people of Mississippi, the courts of Mississippi, and even the repeat post-convicti......
  • Burcham v. Burcham's Estate, 47763
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • November 4, 1974
    ...1016, Code of 1906, or on the ground of fraud. See also Ledyard v. Henderson, 46 Miss. 260 (1871); Pierce v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 254 Miss. 806, 183 So.2d 190 (1966). Notwithstanding that the motion to reopen had been filed with the court clerk and that there had been no expre......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT