32 S.E. 733 | N.C. | 1899
This case was before us at Spring Term, 1898, when it was considered and decided by the Court (
Upon the rehearing, no facts have been called to our attention which had been overlooked by the Court; nor has any new phase of the law bearing on the case been presented to the Court. But the learned counsel for the petitioner put their case squarely upon the ground of error in the opinion heretofore rendered; and in their brief they base their grounds of error upon Hilliard v. Kearney,
If the former opinion is erroneous, it ought to be corrected at the first opportunity, which is now.
The case of Hilliard v. Kearney was discussed by counsel for plaintiff (petitioner) on the former hearing, and was fully considered by the Court and discussed in the opinion then delivered. And this case (Hilliard v.Kearney) was fully discussed by the learned Chief Justice in his dissenting opinion.
The case of Hilliard v. Kearney is not disputed as being good law, and was a correct exposition of the law of the case then before the Court. But the Court when considering this case on the former hearing was of *295
the opinion that it was distinguishable from Hilliard v. Kearney and that it was not controlled by that case, but by section 1327 of The Code and the opinion in Buchanan v. Buchanan,
Upon a careful consideration of the former opinion and the brief of plaintiff's counsel, we find no error in the former opinion of the Court, and the petition to rehear is
DISMISSED.
Cited: Rees v. Williams,
(426)