From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mullen v. Canal Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Sep 1, 1894
20 S.E. 167 (N.C. 1894)

Opinion

(September Term, 1894.)

Petition to Rehear.

Where, upon a petition to rehear a case decided in this Court, it does not appear that the decision was hastily made or that any material point of fact or law or any direct authority was overlooked, the rehearing will be refused.

(16) PETITION to rehear the case between the same parties decided at February Term, 1894, and reported in 114 N.C. p. 8.

W. J. Griffin for petitioner.

Battle Mordecai and W. D. Pruden for defendant.


This is a petition to rehear a case in which the opinion was filed last term, 114 N.C. 8. It does not appear that it was decided hastily, nor that any material point of fact or law, or any direct authority, was overlooked. The petition must, therefore, be dismissed. Hudson v. Jordan, 110 N.C. 250, and cases cited in Clark's Code (2 Ed.), 712.

Petition dismissed.

Cited: Weisel v. Cobb, 122 N.C. 70; Hodgin v. Bank, 125 N.C. 503, 511.


Summaries of

Mullen v. Canal Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Sep 1, 1894
20 S.E. 167 (N.C. 1894)
Case details for

Mullen v. Canal Co.

Case Details

Full title:F. M. MULLEN v. NORFOLK AND NORTH CAROLINA CANAL COMPANY

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Sep 1, 1894

Citations

20 S.E. 167 (N.C. 1894)
115 N.C. 15

Citing Cases

Wool v. Edenton

Affirmed. Cited: S. c., 115 N.C. 15 and 117 N.C. 3; Abbott v. Hancock, 123 N.C. 103.…

Weisel v. Cobb

" See also Hicks v. Skinner, 72 N.C. 1; King v. Winants, 73 N.C. 563; Haywood v. Daves, 81 N.C. 8; Devereux…