Fortune v. McGinn

139 S.W.2d 256, 24 Tenn. App. 36, 1939 Tenn. App. LEXIS 9
Court of Appeals of Tennessee·Decided May 5, 1939·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

SENTER, J.

We have carefully examined the petition for a rehearing in this cause, and do not find that petitioner has brought forward any new matter that was not presented and considered in the former opinion, 134 S. W. (2d), 898. It does contain an excellent restatement of certain facts.

In the former opinion we considered and discussed all the material facts bearing upon the negligence of the respective defendants, and also all material facts bearing upon the question of the proximate contributory negligence of plaintiff. It would be but a restatement of our former opinion to make a further review of the facts and conclusions reached.

The petition for a rehearing is accordingly disallowed.

Petitioner will pay the costs incident to the filing of this petition.

Anderson and Ketchum, JJ., concur.

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

Fortune v. McGinn, 139 S.W.2d 256, 24 Tenn. App. 36, 1939 Tenn. App. LEXIS 9 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1939).

139 S.W.2d 256 (Fortune v. McGinn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway v. Crawford
281 S.W.2d 69 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1954)
Birks v. East Side Transfer Co.
241 P.2d 120 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1952)
Black v. Love & Amos Coal Co.
206 S.W.2d 432 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1947)
Myrick v. Johnson
160 S.W.2d 185 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1941)