General
THOS. RHEA et al., Appellants, v. WILLIAM SURRYHNE, Respondent
39 Cal. 581·Supreme Court of California·1870·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 2,459.
THOS. RHEA et al., Appellants, v. WILLIAM SURRYHNE, Respondent.
Practice—Modification of a Judgment.—A modification of a judgment cannot be made in this Court, until a re-hearing has been granted.
Petition for modification of the judgment heretofore rendered in this case.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Charles. A. Tuttle and W. H. Glascock, for Appellants.
S. F. Gilcrest, for Respondent.
[MAJORITY — Rhodes, C. J.,]
Rhodes, C. J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court, Sprague, J., and Wallace J., concurring;
The respondent has filed a petition for the modification of the judgment. The desired modification could not be made consistently with the practice of this Court, until after rehearing had been granted. The petition is, in effect, a petition for re-hearing, and this is forbidden by Bule 20 of the Court.
The clerk is directed to-strike the petition from the files of the Court.
Crockett, J., and Temple,. J., expressed no opinion