Kelly v. Ozone Tung Cooperative
Kelly v. Ozone Tung Cooperative.
Subsequent history: aff'd, Kelly v. Ozone Tung Coop., 44 So. 2d 865 (La. 1950). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)
Opinion of the Court
On October 15, 1948, within the delay period fixed by law, Act No. 16 of 1910, § 1, Dart's Code of Practice Art. 9205, the appellants, James E. Kelly, Mrs. Sara Schwartz Kelly and Francis E. Bickford filed an application for a rehearing in this cause, contending that we erred in nine particular instances. After a thorough review of the record, we are unable to agree with the appellants that we have committed any errors in our finding of fact.
On November 4, 1948, thirty days after the rendition of our decree and after the delay period as fixed by the law had well expired, the appellants filed "a supplemental and amended application for re-hearing", in which they contended that we erred in five additional instances. In their original application, the appellants had requested permission to amplify their application. It has been held by the Supreme Court that that court is powerless to grant a litigant additional time to apply for a rehearing and to supplement the grounds for a rehearing after the statutory delay for rehearing had expired in that it would be equivalent to granting additional time in which to file the application for rehearing. See Gautreaux: v. Harang, 190 La. 1060 , 183 So. 349 , 374. We therefore decline to pass upon the supplemental and amended application.
Application for rehearing refused. *Page 233
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.