suggestion error in Mississippi

1935As a corollary of this rule, the practice is also that this court will not consider, "on a suggestion of error, a new contention, one not assigned or argued on the submission of the case." Eady v. State, 153 Miss. 696 , 122 So. 199 , 200.

1935As a corollary of this rule, the practice is also that this court will not consider, "on a suggestion of error, a new contention, one not assigned or argued on the submission of the case." Eady v. State, 153 Miss. 696 , 122 So. 199 , 200.

2003J., in response to the suggestion of error in Dean v. State, 173 Miss. 254 , at pages 309 and 310, 160 So. 584 , 162 So. 155 .

1999J., in response to the suggestion of error in Dean v. State, 173 Miss. 254 , at pages 309 and 310, 160 So. 584 , 162 So. 155 .

2003J., in response to the suggestion of error in Dean v. State, 173 Miss. 254 , at pages 309 and 310, 160 So. 584 , 162 So. 155 .

2003J., in response to the suggestion of error in Dean v. State, 173 Miss. 254 , at pages 309 and 310, 160 So. 584 , 162 So. 155 .

2006Brookhaven Steam Laundry v. Watts, 214 Miss. 569 , 55 So.2d 381 (1951), withdrawn by Brookhaven Steam Laundry v. Watts, 214 Miss. 569 , 59 So.2d 294 (1952).

1952Now, as to the meaning of the phrase: So far as this Court is concerned we have settled upon the definition of that meaning in the opinion this day handed down sustaining a suggestion of error in the case of Brookhaven Steam Laundry, v. Watts, Miss., 59 So. (2d) 294 .

1985In its reply brief, Jesco states: [2] Appellant again attempts to distinguish Grice v. Central Electric Power Assn., 230 Miss. 437 , 92 So.2d 837 (1957), by arguing that no judgment was ever entered by the lower court in that case.

1957The suggestion of error filed herein by the appellee to the opinion heretofore rendered on March 4, 1957, as reported in 92 So. 2d 837 , first challenges our action in holding that this case on the facts was one for decision by a jury and that consequently the trial court erred in sustaining a motion of the appellee, defendant in the lower court, for a judgment non obstante veredicto.

1984In the case of Paxton v. Baum, 59 Miss. 531 , in the opinion in chief on page 537 this court said: "But, in view of the well-settled rule of the common law that for errors or mistakes a public officer acting judicially or quasi judicially is not liable, it could not have been the purpose of the Legislature to make members of boards of supervisors personally liable for errors or mistakes as to how to act in matters committed to such boards by law, and as to objects for which an appropriation of money is authorized to be made by them." Again on page 539 in the opinion in response to the suggesti

1920In the case of Paxton v. Baum, 59 Miss. 531 , in the opinion in chief on page 537 this court said: “But, in view of the well-settled rule of the common law that for errors or mistakes a public officer acting judicially or quasi judicially is not liable, it could not have been the purpose of the legislature to make members of boards of supervisors personally liable for errors or mistakes as to how to act in matters committed to such boards by law, and as to objects for which an appropriation of money is authorized to be made by them.” Again on page 539 in the opinion in response to the suggesti

1983We said that no period of time short of the statute of limitations can be used as supporting any laches which will constitute an equitable bar to the suit, citing Waldrop v. Whittington, 213 Miss. 567 , 57 So.2d 298 .

1983We said that no period of time short of the statute of limitations can be used as supporting any laches which will constitute an equitable bar to the suit, citing Waldrop v. Whittington, 213 Miss. 567 , 57 So.2d 298 .

1982The United States Supreme Court said: "Inconsistent testimony as to the confession should not and cannot preclude the accused from raising the due process issue in an appropriate manner... ." [ 332 U.S. at 745 , 68 S.Ct. at 301 ]. *449 On remand, the Mississippi Supreme Court conformed its opinion in Lee with that decision in the following words: As will appear from our opinion rendered on the suggestion of error herein ([ Lee v. State ] 201 Miss. 423 , 30 So.(2d) 74, 75) "if the accused had not denied having made any confession at all, we would feel constrained to reverse the conviction herei

1948As will appear from our opinion rendered on the suggestion of error herein ( 201 Miss. 423 , 30 So. (2d) 74 , 75) “if the accused had not denied having made any confession at all, we would feel constrained to reverse the conviction herein because of the fact that” his confession was not freely and voluntarily made.

1978At any rate, we have reached the conclusion after a careful consideration of the question now before us that any right growing out of this additional assessment that the taxpayer may have had under *1203 Section 10122, supra, to sue the Commission has been merged into the judgment rendered by the Circuit Court of Hinds County on certiorari and the judgment of affirmance thereof by this Court; that the judgment then rendered by this Court is binding upon the appellant because of its finality, whether correct or not on the issue of liability involved; that the said judgment existed as a valid as

1948The question now before us on this suggestion of error (and to which our attention has not been specifically directed heretofore on any of the several appeals in suits filed subsequently to the rendition of the decision in Viator v. Stone, infra, as shown in the cases of Viator v. Edwins, sheriff, etc., 195 Miss. 220 , 14 So.2d 212 ; Viator v. Stone, Chairman of State Tax Commsision, 201 Miss. 487 , 29 So.2d 274 , 658, including the original presentation of this one as reported in 33 So.2d 310 and involving the alleged right of the taxpayer to recover the money paid by him pursuant to the fina

1962Amite County v. Mills, 138 Miss. 222 , 238, 102 So. 737 (1925); Ball v. State, 203 Miss. 521 , 527, 36 So.2d 159 (1948); Continental Southern Lines v. Klaas, 217 Miss. 795 , 853, 65 So.2d 575 (1953); Snowden v. Webb, 217 Miss. 664 , 683, 64 So.2d 745 (1953).

1953A suggestion of error was overruled in this case on July 3, 1953, (Miss.), 65 So.2d 839 .

1962Amite County v. Mills, 138 Miss. 222 , 238, 102 So. 737 (1925); Ball v. State, 203 Miss. 521 , 527, 36 So.2d 159 (1948); Continental Southern Lines v. Klaas, 217 Miss. 795 , 853, 65 So.2d 575 (1953); Snowden v. Webb, 217 Miss. 664 , 683, 64 So.2d 745 (1953).

1925Thereafter, a suggestion of error was filed by counsel for the appellee, and the judgment of reversal was set aside and the case was remanded to the docket for submission to the court in banc; and on a later day the judgment of the court below was by the court in banc again reversed and the cause dismissed. 102 So. 465 .

1953Appellant, Continental Southern Lines, Inc., has filed (1) a motion requesting this Court to set aside the opinions, orders and judgments rendered in these cases and to remand them to the docket for consideration and adjudication by all nine of the Judges, on the argued *852 ground that the original decisions, 65 So.2d 575, 596 , were void, since the affirmance was by a four to four vote, and four judges cannot affirm a case, and hence it is argued the affirmance on suggestion of error by five judges, 65 So.2d 833 , 834, is not a valid ratification of the original judgment; (2) a motion to arg

1953Appellant, Continental Southern Lines, Inc., has filed (1) a motion requesting this Court to set aside the opinions, orders and judgments rendered in these cases and to remand them to the docket for consideration and adjudication by all nine of the Judges, on the argued ground that the original decisions, 65 So. 2d 575, 596 , were void, since the affirmance was by a four to four vote, and four judges cannot affirm a case, and hence it is argued the affirmance on suggestion of error by five judges, 65 So. 2d 833 , 834, is not a valid ratification of the original judgment; (2) a motion to argue

1961The Court later passed upon this question in the case of McArthur v. Maryland Casualty Co., 184 Miss. 663 , 186 So. 305 , in which Judge McGehee, speaking for the Court, in discussing a suggestion of error in the case of Travelers’ Insurance Company v. Inman, 157 Miss. 648 , 128 So. 878 , quoted from that opinion as follows: “In administering the laws of the State of Louisiana, of course, we are bound by the construction given such laws by the Supreme Court of Louisiana.” And in this case he said: “Therefore, in view of the decisions of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, hereinbefore referred

1961The Court later passed upon this question in the case of McArthur v. Maryland Casualty Co., 184 Miss. 663 , 186 So. 305 , in which Judge McGehee, speaking for the Court, in discussing a suggestion of error in the case of Travelers’ Insurance Company v. Inman, 157 Miss. 648 , 128 So. 878 , quoted from that opinion as follows: “In administering the laws of the State of Louisiana, of course, we are bound by the construction given such laws by the Supreme Court of Louisiana.” And in this case he said: “Therefore, in view of the decisions of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, hereinbefore referred

1957The appellant contends in its response (1) that under the authority of Inman v. Travelers Insurance Company, 154 Miss. 611 , 122 So. 537 , the motion to retax costs should be deemed a suggestion of error and that the suggestion of error now before the court is a second suggestion of error and cannot be entertained under Rule 14(3) of this Court providing that after a suggestion of error has been sustained or overruled by the Court no further suggestion of error shall be filed by any party; (2) that under Rule 16 of this Court no motion once disposed of or dismissed shall again be heard and tha

1957The appellant contends in its response (1) that under the authority of Inman v. Travelers Insurance Company, 154 Miss. 611 , 122 So. 537 , the motion to retax costs should be deemed a suggestion of error and that the suggestion of error now before the court is a second suggestion of error and cannot be entertained under Rule 14(3) of this Court providing that after a suggestion of error has been sustained or overruled by the Court no further suggestion of error shall be filed by any party; (2) that under Rule 16 of this Court no motion once disposed of or dismissed shall again be heard and tha

1957This exact point was recently decided adversely to appellant’s contention in the case of McIntosh v. Munson Road Machinery Co. (Miss.), 145 So. 731 ; and consequently the suggestion of error, or motion to correct the judgment as it is erroneously styled, must he overruled. ’ ’ It is also contrary to what was said by Judge Griffith in the case of Brock, State Bank Commissioner v. Adler, 180 Miss. 126, 128 , 178 So. 593 , as follows: “Much as we sympathize with appellee as a result of the decision in Adler v. Interstate Trust & Banking Co., 166 Miss. 215 , 146 So. 107 , 87 A. L.

1933This exact point was recently decided adversely to appellant's contention in the case of McIntosh v. Munson Road Machinery Co. (Miss.), 145 So. 731 ; and consequently the suggestion of error, or motion to correct the judgment as it is erroneously styled, must be overruled.

1953As was pointed out in Brown v. Sutton, 158 Miss. 78 , 121 So. 835 , this Court “acts and must act only on the record as it is certified to us by the clerk of the trial court.” Referring now to the suggestion of error, we find that appellee takes exception to the following language in the opinion: ‘ ‘ There was a disputed question of fact as to whether appellee required appellant to leave the tractor under the mill shed.

1953As was pointed out in Brown v. Sutton, 158 Miss. 78 , 121 So. 835 , this Court “acts and must act only on the record as it is certified to us by the clerk of the trial court.” Referring now to the suggestion of error, we find that appellee takes exception to the following language in the opinion: ‘ ‘ There was a disputed question of fact as to whether appellee required appellant to leave the tractor under the mill shed.

1953This Court has held in The Superior Oil Company v. Foote, 214 Miss. 857 , 59 So. 2d 85 , and in other cases cited in the original opinion and in the majority opinion on the suggestion of error, that under the 1932 and 1936 statutes the board had authority to establish drilling units and that it did establish drilling units.

1953This Court has held in The Superior Oil Company v. Foote, 214 Miss. 857 , 59 So. 2d 85 , and in other cases cited in the original opinion and in the majority opinion on the suggestion of error, that under the 1932 and 1936 statutes the board had authority to establish drilling units and that it did establish drilling units.

1947We re-affirm what we said in the case of Delta Cotton Oil Co. v. Elliott, 179 Miss. 200 , 201, at page 217, 172 So. 737 , 174 So. 550 , 551: "It is elemental that the duty rests upon an appellant to show error when he presents his appeal and he must do this on the original submission; for we have time and again held that `it is rarely the case that this court will notice, on a suggestion of error, a new contention, one not assigned or argued on the submission of the case.

1947We re-affirm what we said in the case of Delta Cotton Oil Co. v. Elliott, 179 Miss. 200 , 201, at page 217, 172 So. 737 , 174 So. 550 , 551: "It is elemental that the duty rests upon an appellant to show error when he presents his appeal and he must do this on the original submission; for we have time and again held that `it is rarely the case that this court will notice, on a suggestion of error, a new contention, one not assigned or argued on the submission of the case.

1944Eady v. State, 152 Miss. 696 , 122 So. 199 ; State v. Tann, 172 Miss. 167 , 158 So. 777 , 159 So. 539 .

1944Eady v. State, 153 Miss. 696 , 122 So. 199 ; State v. Tann, 172 Miss. [162], 167, 158 So. 777 , 159 So. 539 ." Suggestion of error overruled. *Page 571

1929Co. v. James, 118 Miss. 724 , 801 So. 2 ; Bacot v. Holloway, 140 Miss. 120 , 104 So. 696 , 105 So. 739 . *160 Iii the Couret case it was distinctly held that the motion to correct the judgment was, in reality, a suggestion of error, because the court was asked to render a different judgment from that which it had pronounced, and which it had entered on its own minutes; the two being’ in consonance.

1929Co. v. James, 118 Miss. 724 , 801 So. 2 ; Bacot v. Holloway, 140 Miss. 120 , 104 So. 696 , 105 So. 739 . *160 Iii the Couret case it was distinctly held that the motion to correct the judgment was, in reality, a suggestion of error, because the court was asked to render a different judgment from that which it had pronounced, and which it had entered on its own minutes; the two being’ in consonance.

1929Co. v. James, 118 Miss. 724 , 801 So. 2 ; Bacot v. Holloway, 140 Miss. 120 , 104 So. 696 , 105 So. 739 . *160 Iii the Couret case it was distinctly held that the motion to correct the judgment was, in reality, a suggestion of error, because the court was asked to render a different judgment from that which it had pronounced, and which it had entered on its own minutes; the two being’ in consonance.

1926Should we treat this motion as a suggestion of error, aad such in fact it is (Railroad Co. v. James, 118 Miss. 724 , 80 So. 2 ), the limitation of rule No. 14 would still apply.

1916This suggestion of error was overruled on a later day, as appears from 109 Miss. 494 , 69 So. 179 .) A demurrer interposed to the bill was sustained, and the bill dismissed; and the appeal to this court is from the decree so doing.

1916This suggestion of error was overruled on a later day, as appears from 109 Miss. 494 , 69 So. 179 .) A demurrer interposed to the bill was sustained, and the bill dismissed; and the appeal to this court is from the decree so doing.

2025It then filed a suggestion of error arguing that this Court was contradicting its precedent because it had previously condemned as champertous the transfer of “an interest in a disputed claim to certain slaves” in Rives v. Weaver, 36 Miss. 374 (1858).

2025Cooner, 118 So. at 707 .