Camden Fire Ins. v. Delaney Moss Co.

Mississippi Supreme Court

Camden Fire Ins. v. Delaney Moss Co.

118 So. 535, 152 Miss. 342, 1928 Miss. LEXIS 216

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedApril 23, 1928

DocketNo. 26770.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 118 So. 535 (Camden Fire Ins. v. Delaney Moss Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Camden Fire Ins. v. Delaney Moss Co., 118 So. 535, 152 Miss. 342, 1928 Miss. LEXIS 216 (Mich. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam

:—The judgment here appealed from was affirmed when we first considered the case. Afterwards a suggestion of error was filed by the appellant, to which a reply by the appellee was called for by the court, and the case was then reargued by means of briefs. The case was then reconsidered by this court, its judgment of affirmance was set aside, the judgment of the court below was reversed, and the case was remanded.

The appellee has now filed a suggestion of error, strenuously arguing that the judgment of affirmance was correct, that the judgment setting aside the judgment of affirmance and reversing the judgment of the court below is erroneous, and should be set aside,.and the original judgment of affirmance reinstated. All of the questions argued in the suggestion or error wore, or should have been, argued both in the original briefs and those filed on the appellant’s suggestion of error. The appellee has had every opportunity to fully argue the case, and, should we reconsider it, we would, necessarily, traverse the same ground which we have twice heretofore done.

Should this suggestion of error be sustained, the appellant would have the same right to file another that the appellee had to file this one; so that, unless there is to be an end of litigation, we might be called on to protract the consideration of the case indefinitely. We have done the best we could with the case, and, as there must be an end to litigation, the suggestion of error will be dis-' missed, and the case will be no further considered.

Suggestion of error dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam

:—The judgment here appealed from was affirmed when we first considered the case. Afterwards a suggestion of error was filed by the appellant, to which a reply by the appellee was called for by the court, and the case was then reargued by means of briefs. The case was then reconsidered by this court, its judgment of affirmance was set aside, the judgment of the court below was reversed, and the case was remanded.

The appellee has now filed a suggestion of error, strenuously arguing that the judgment of affirmance was correct, that the judgment setting aside the judgment of affirmance and reversing the judgment of the court below is erroneous, and should be set aside,.and the original judgment of affirmance reinstated. All of the questions argued in the suggestion or error wore, or should have been, argued both in the original briefs and those filed on the appellant’s suggestion of error. The appellee has had every opportunity to fully argue the case, and, should we reconsider it, we would, necessarily, traverse the same ground which we have twice heretofore done.

Should this suggestion of error be sustained, the appellant would have the same right to file another that the appellee had to file this one; so that, unless there is to be an end of litigation, we might be called on to protract the consideration of the case indefinitely. We have done the best we could with the case, and, as there must be an end to litigation, the suggestion of error will be dis-' missed, and the case will be no further considered.

Suggestion of error dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 So. 535, 152 Miss. 342, 1928 Miss. LEXIS 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camden-fire-ins-v-delaney-moss-co-miss-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack