Rigdon v. General Box Co., 42924
| Decision Date | 20 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 42924,42924 |
| Citation | 249 Miss. 239,162 So.2d 863 |
| Parties | Paul R. RIGDON v. GENERAL BOX COMPANY and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
H. C. Mike Watkins, Meridian, for appellant.
Lawrence W. Rabb, Meridian, for appellees.
Appellees contend in their suggestion of error that the attorney-referee and the Commission erroneously awarded claimant $6.01 per week for permanent partial disability when under the adjudicated facts the compensation should be $4.01. This contention was not pointed out in the petition for review by the Commission of the attorney-referee's order nor in the petition to the circuit court for review of the Commission's order. On appeal to this Court, the sole issue, except some procedural matters, was whether the Commission's order awarding permanent partial disability benefits was supported by substantial evidence. The amount of compensation benefits was not an issue and was not argued. Therefore, we have it raised for the first time on suggestion of error.
This Court has said many times that new points made and presented for the first time on a suggestion of error will not be considered unless exceptional reasons therefor are shown. This rule is not limited to questions omitted from assignments of error by an appellant or cross-appellant. It applies as well to questions raised for the first time on suggestion of error by an unsuccessful appellee who was under no obligation to file an assignment of error. Taylor v. Copeland, 183 Miss. 85, 181 So. 742, 183 So. 519; Dixie Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Miss. Public Service Commission, et al., 190 Miss. 704, 200 So. 579, 1 So.2d 489; Miss. State Board of Health v. Johnson, 197 Miss. 417, 19 So.2d 445, 827; Frederic v. Board of Supervisors, Jackson County, 197 Miss. 293, 20 So.2d 92, 671; Gulf Refining Co., et al. v. Harrison, 201 Miss. 294, 28 So.2d 221, 30 So.2d 44, 807; Miss. Oil & Gas Board v. Superior Oil Co., 202 Miss. 139, 30 So.2d 589, 32 So.2d 200; Crabb, et al., v. Wilkinson, et al., 202 Miss. 274, 32 So.2d 356; Foster v. Jefferson County, 202 Miss. 629, 32 So.2d 126, 568.
An appellee should anticipate that the case may be reversed on the issues raised by appellant, and if he wishes to raise a point in event of reversal he must do so in his brief, otherwise he waives it.
The reasons for this rule are found in the necessity for orderly procedure so that cases may be disposed of on one hearing rather than by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hathorn v. Lovorn
...rehearing "[o]nly in exceptional cases." New & Hughes Drilling Co. v. Smith, 219 So.2d 657, 661 (Miss.1969); Rigdon v. General Box Co., 249 Miss. 239, 246, 162 So.2d 863, 864 (1964). Although these opinions may summarize the court's practice prior to 1969, we have been unable to find any mo......
-
New & Hughes Drilling Co. v. Smith
...for the first time in a petition for rehearing. Rigdon v. General Box Co., 249 Miss. 239, 161 So.2d 776, sugg. of error overruled 162 So.2d 863 (1964); Prince v. Nicholson, 229 Miss. 718, 91 So.2d 734, motion to disallow damages overruled 92 So.2d 375 (1957); Dixie Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. ......
-
Smith and Sanders, Inc. v. Peery
... ... In general, where the claim is based upon a mental or nervous disease, it is viewed ... Citing Johnson v. Gulfport Laundry & Cleaning Co., 249 Miss. 11, 162 So.2d 859 (1964) ... In the Johnson ... ...
-
Crump v. Fields, 43337
...as to whether the cause may then be reopened for the purpose of hearing a new and entirely different question. Cf. Rigdon v. General Box Co., 162 So.2d 863 (Miss.1964) where this Court has declined, on suggestion of error, to entertain a new question as proper to be The triers of fact had a......