Opinion
Nos. 37190, 37210, 37211.
October 5, 1943. On Applications for Rehearing.
On applications for rehearing. Rehearing denied. For original opinion, see 204 La. 263, 15 So.2d 217.
Fred J. Heintz, of Covington, and John B. Smullin, of Baton Rouge, for relator.
R.A. Dowling, of New Orleans, and George M. Wallace, of Baton Rouges, for respondents.
Petitions and supplemental petitions for a rehearing were filed by the parties who opposed the granting of the writs of certiorari and prohibition asked for by the defendants in suit numbered 37,190, and who were the relators in the proceedings numbered 37,210 and 37,211, respectively, in which proceedings they asked this court either to grant them a suspensive appeal from the judgment rendered in the suit numbered 37,190 on June 17, 1943, or to grant them a writ of mandamus to compel the district judge to grant the relators a suspensive appeal. The defendants, against whom the judgment was rendered in the suit No. 37,190, have not asked for a rehearing.
It is provided in Section 5 of Rule XII of the Rules of this Court (191 La. xliv) that an application for a rehearing will not be considered in a case such as this, where the court has refused to grant a writ of certiorari or other supervisory writ or a rule nisi. That rule is applicable in all cases, even when the reason given by this court for refusing to grant a writ or rule nisi is that the judgment or order complained of is correct, and even when this court renders an opinion explaining why the judgment or ruling complained of is correct.
For the reasons stated all of the petitions and supplemental petitions for a rehearing, filed in the above numbered and entitled case, in any one or all of the proceedings numbered, respectively, 37,190, 37,210 and 37,211 of the docket of this court, are denied.
While it is true that it is declared in the rules adopted by this court (Section 5 of Rule 12) that an application for a rehearing will not be considered when the court has refused to grant a writ, even when an opinion is rendered explaining why the writ is refused, the fact still remains that in the opinion in the instant case the title to the office of Sheriff and ex-officio Tax Collector of Plaquemine Parish was declared to be lawfully in Walter J. Blaize without Dr. B.R. Slater, the party claiming title to the office and in possession thereof under the express provisions of Section 71 of Article 7 of the Constitution of 1921 and which, if enforced, would deprive him of that office without due process since he was not made a party to the proceedings; further, some 800 citizens and taxpayers of Plaquemine Parish, including deputy sheriffs holding office under Dr. Slater, and the Police Jury, charged that the entire proceedings were conceived and culminated in collusion and fraud and that as interested parties aggrieved by the said ruling they were denied the right given them under the express provisions of Article 571 of the Code of Practice, to an appeal. I know of no constitutional or statutory mandate that compels this court to perpetuate errors of judgment because of some rule adopted for the court's own guidance and convenience.