Skip to content


Williams Vs. Conger - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number131 U.S. 390
AppellantWilliams
RespondentConger
Excerpt:
.....court williams v. conger, 131 u.s. 390 (1888) williams v. conger no. 105 of october term, 1887 decided october 22, 1888 131 u.s. 390 error to the circuit court of the united states for the northern district of texas syllabus 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. 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......
Judgment:
Williams v. Conger - 131 U.S. 390 (1888)
U.S. Supreme Court Williams v. Conger, 131 U.S. 390 (1888)

Williams v. Conger

No. 105 of October Term, 1887

Decided October 22, 1888

131 U.S. 390

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Syllabus

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.

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.

Page 131 U. S. 391

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the Court.

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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //