James S. Rogers, Appellant, v. William Laytin et al., Respondents

James S. Rogers, Appellant, v. William Laytin et al., Respondents. The omission of the appellant to present a point appearing in the case upon the argument of a cause in this court is not, as a general rule, a ■ ground for reargument; the ordinary rule that an exception not raised on argument is to be deemed abandoned will govern. (Argued June 8, 1880; decided June 15, 1880.) This was a motion for reargument. A brief memorandum of the case appears in 80 N. T. 637. The court say that the motion “ should not be granted unless something has been overlooked in the decision of the court which is material to the result, or some mistake has been made which must have affected our conclusions.” After discussing various suggestions and holdings, none of them brought the case within the rule, the opinion closes thus. . “ The last suggestions presented to us consist of an argument upon three points not previously argued by counsel. We doubt very much whether we ought even to consider such an omission as any ground for a rehearing. Were we to do so, the precedent might become dangerous. It might lead to the argument of appeals in sections or detachments. We do not in the least doubt the good faith of the counsel’s explanation, that the omission was accidental and not intended, and yet the ordinary rule, that an exception not raised on the argument is to he deemed abandoned, is too wise to be lightly dismissed. If not adhered to, an argument might become a series of experiments. On the whole case we cannot see sufficient reason for a reargument, and therefore deny the motion.” C. J. G. Hall for motion. Theo. F. Jackson opposing. [MAJORITY] Finch, J., reads for denial of motion for reargument. All concur. Motion denied.