Summary
In Williams v. Conger, 131 U.S. 390, the Court said that having denied the petition to rehear, "the persistent renewal of the application... is not in order, and does not recommend itself to the favorable consideration of the Court.
Summary of this case from Moore v. HarkinsOpinion
No. 105.
October Term, 1887. Decided October 22, 1888.
A renewal of an application for a rehearing after the close of the term at which judgment was rendered, and for reasons which have been passed upon by the court, is not in order, and does not commend itself to the favorable consideration of the court.
Mr. Eugene Williams for both petitions.
THIS was a petition to correct a clerical mistake in the opinion of this court, delivered April 2, 1888, Williams v. Conger, 125 U.S. 397, citing in support of the power to make the amendment Bank of Kentucky v. Wistar, 3 Pet. 431. To this petition was appended a petition for a rehearing which had been presented and overruled at October Term, 1887, accompanied by a "demand upon the court" to give it a hearing.
Leave to file a motion for rehearing in this case is asked for on the ground of clerical error in the opinion. A motion for rehearing was made at the last term upon precisely the same brief now sought to be filed, and notwithstanding the alleged misconception in the opinion of the point made by the plaintiff in error, the court was satisfied with the conclusion it had reached, and that no modification of the judgment was required, and no rehearing was necessary or called for. The motion was therefore denied. The persistent renewal of the application at this time, after the close of the term at which judgment was rendered, and especially upon the same reasons once overruled, is not in order, and does not recommend itself to the favorable consideration of the court.