Thompson v. Jarvis

Michigan Supreme Court

Thompson v. Jarvis

40 Mich. 526

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 15, 1879

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 40 Mich. 526 (Thompson v. Jarvis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. Jarvis, 40 Mich. 526 (Mich. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In these eases nothing is suggested beyond what was considered by the court upon the original arguments, and the motions are therefore denied.

The court does not consider it to be its duty to spread out every reason which may have influenced its conclusions upon every question that arises in a case. Opinions must be reasonably brief, and if cases can be completely and properly disposed of within a moderate compass it is better that they should be. The court does not wish to be understood that arguments have necessarily been overlooked because they have not been noticed in the opinion. It is not wise or seemly to insert a discussion on all points that counsel choose to raise. It is questionable how far rehearing can be allowed on alleged mistakes of judgment in an appellate court, but they must generally be denied whether a possible authority exists or not to grant them, unless new evidence has been found since the decision of the case, of such a nature as to require consideration. The previous decisions of the court explain their general views on the subject of review and rehearing. Hutchins v. Kimmell, 31 Mich., 126; Taylor v. Boardman, 24 Mich., 287: 25 Mich., 527; Ryerson v. Eldred, 23 Mich., 537; Adams v. Field, 25 Mich., 16; Case v. Case, 26 Mich., 484; Detroit Savings Bank v. Truesdail, 38 Mich., ; Wood v. Truax, 39 Mich., ; Vannetter v. Crossman, 39 Mich., .

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

Per Curiam.

In these eases nothing is suggested beyond what was considered by the court upon the original arguments, and the motions are therefore denied.

The court does not consider it to be its duty to spread out every reason which may have influenced its conclusions upon every question that arises in a case. Opinions must be reasonably brief, and if cases can be completely and properly disposed of within a moderate compass it is better that they should be. The court does not wish to be understood that arguments have necessarily been overlooked because they have not been noticed in the opinion. It is not wise or seemly to insert a discussion on all points that counsel choose to raise. It is questionable how far rehearing can be allowed on alleged mistakes of judgment in an appellate court, but they must generally be denied whether a possible authority exists or not to grant them, unless new evidence has been found since the decision of the case, of such a nature as to require consideration. The previous decisions of the court explain their general views on the subject of review and rehearing. Hutchins v. Kimmell, 31 Mich., 126; Taylor v. Boardman, 24 Mich., 287: 25 Mich., 527; Ryerson v. Eldred, 23 Mich., 537; Adams v. Field, 25 Mich., 16; Case v. Case, 26 Mich., 484; Detroit Savings Bank v. Truesdail, 38 Mich., ; Wood v. Truax, 39 Mich., ; Vannetter v. Crossman, 39 Mich., .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 Mich. 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-jarvis-mich-1879.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack