Williams v. Conger

131 U.S. 390, 9 S. Ct. 793, 33 L. Ed. 201, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2043
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided October 22, 1888·No. 105·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

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.

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

Williams v. Conger, 131 U.S. 390, 9 S. Ct. 793, 33 L. Ed. 201, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2043 (1888).

131 U.S. 390 (Williams v. Conger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cahill v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
351 U.S. 183 (Supreme Court, 1956)
Sun Oil Co. v. Burford
130 F.2d 10 (Fifth Circuit, 1942)
City of Stuart v. Green
91 F.2d 603 (Fifth Circuit, 1937)
Moore v. . Harkins
103 S.E. 12 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1920)
Virginia & West Virginia Coal, Co. v. Charles
254 F. 379 (Fourth Circuit, 1918)
Brandon v. West
29 Nev. 135 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1906)
Bushnell v. Crooke Mining & Smelting Co.
150 U.S. 82 (Supreme Court, 1893)