This Court cannot grant a motion for the rehearing of a cause
which has been transmitted to the court below.
This case was argued and decided at the last term, and is
reported in 17 Howard.
Mr. Rush, of counsel for the appellee, now stated to the Court
that a petition from the appellee was on file, verified by
affidavit, and moved for a rehearing, which was opposed by Mr.
Wahr, counsel for the appellant.
MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of court.
This case was decided at the last term, on an appeal from the
Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, and a motion is now made by Mr. Rush, counsel for the
appellee, for a reargument, on the ground that he was prevented by
sickness from attending the Court at the time of the hearing.
It is a subject of regret that any cause should be heard in the
absence of counsel, and especially where the cause of absence, by a
failure in the mail, was unknown to the Court.
In the above case, the brief of the counsel was before the
Court, and it is not probable that an oral argument would have
changed the result.
But in the case of Browder v.
7 Wheat. 58, it was held that this Court
cannot grant a rehearing in a case which has been remitted to the
court below, and in the case of Washington
Bridge Company v. Stewart,
3 How. 413, the same
principle was recognized. The motion is