Hargis v. Ozone Lumber Co.
Hargis v. Ozone Lumber Co.
Opinion of the Court
Relators respectively apply for mandamus to compel the respondent judges to hear and determine their respective petitions for a rehearing. The answer is that the said petitions came too late under the rules of the court prescribing a delay of three legal days for the filing of applications for rehearings. The rejoinder is that rela-tors were entitled to three judicial days under the express provisions of Act No. 100, p. 149, of 1896. There can be no question that the relators’ contention is correct, if said act has not been repealed or modified by the constitutional amendments of 1906 (Act No.
We, however, are clearly of opinion that Act No. 100, p. 149, of 1896, is still in force as to the three judicial days allowed for filing of rehearings in Courts of Appeal, and that the law cannot be changed by a rule of the courts.
It is therefore ordered that peremptory writs of mandamus issue in each case as prayed for by the relators.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- HARGIS v. OZONE LUMBER CO. In re OZONE LUMBER CO. GREMILLION v. JONES. In re JONES
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Appeal and Error — Petition for Rehearing — Time bob Filing Petition. Act No. 100, p. 149, of 1896, allowing three judicial days for filing petitions for rehearings in Courts of Appeal, is still in force. (Syllabus by the Court.)