Blaize v. HayesBlaize v. Hayes
Lead Opinion
Petitions and supplemental petitions for a rehearing • were filed by the parties who opposed the grаnting of the writs of certiorari and prohibition asked for by the defendants in suit numbered 37,190, and who were the relators in the proceedings numbered 37,210 and 37,211, respectively, in which proceedings they asked this court either to grant them a susрensive appeal from the judgment rendered in the suit numbеred 37,190 on June 17, 1943, or to grant them a writ of mandamus to comрel the district judge to. grant the relators a suspensive аppeal. The defendants, against whom the judgment was rеndered in the suit No. 37,-190, have not asked for a rehearing.
It is provided in Section 5 of Rule XII of the Rules of this Court (
For the reasons stated all of the petitions and suрplemental petitions for a rehearing, filed • in the аbove numbered and entitled case, in any one or all of the proceedings numbered, respectively, 37,190, 37,210 and 37,211 of the docket of this court, are denied.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting).
While it is true thаt it is declared in the rules adopted by this court (Section 5 of Rule 12) that an application for a reheаring will not be considered when the court has refused to grаnt a writ, even when an1, opinion is rendered explaining why thе writ is refused, the fact still remains that in the opinion in the instant case the title to the office of Sheriff and ex-ófficiо Tax Collector of Plaquemine Parish was declared to be lawfully in Walter J. Blaize without Dr. B. R. Slater, the party clаiming title to the office and in possession thereof under the express provisions of Section 71 of Article 7 of the Constitution of 1921 and which, if enforced, would deprive him оf that office without due process since he was not made a party to the proceedings; further, some 800 citizens and taxpayers of Plaquemine Parish, including deрuty sheriffs holding office under Dr. Slater, and the Police Jury,, clmrged that the entire proceedings were-conceived and culminated in collusion and fraud and that as interеsted parties aggrieved by the said ruling they were denied, thе right given them under the express, provisions of Article 571 of thе Code of Practice, to an appeal. I know of no constitutional or statutory mandate that compels this court to perpetuate errors of judgmеnt because of some rule adopted for the court’s own guidance and convenience.