Show REQUEST A REHEARING supreme court opinion is questioned APPLIED THE WRONG WHONG RULES prominent legal firms ask the court to Ro reconsider consider its decision a in the worth north point irrigation C case se holding that appeals would not lie from interlocutory orders now new grand jury begins work or on the bacon bank cases criminal cases called and set when tile the supreme court rendered an opinion a few weeks ago holding that appeals apac als front from interlocutory orders such is as restraining orders and temporary injun injunctions C 11 would not lie there was consternation among the leaders ot of the bar and especially among those n who ho are largely in mining gitig a llon lion the case cage in which the opinion was rendered was that ot of tile th north point consolidated Irrig ration company a against tile the utah and salt lake canal company et ct al ali tile the appeal having been taken irom from an order ot of the district court granting a temporary injunction against the defendants PETITION FOR REHEARING As soon as aa the trul had been lied filed defendants expressed their intention of petitioning ilia iho court for a rehearing and a number of 0 the iho leading ir members embers ot of the elie salt lake bar asked permission to join in the petition the r request it was rowdily acceded to and the petition was filed yesterday the petition Is as f follows 01 now come the his defendants and petition the court for or a rehearing of the above entitled cause upon alio llio 10 following 1 r to wit 1 tho the c ourt court erred in fit tho the op in said causo cause 2 tho the COME erred in ili to the constitution of oc ill the state stale of utah the i uh nit applicable to the iho construction of the ConlU ulton of ilia hi untied united states 3 the lulo itile of at construction applied by 1110 court in ili tills thin case cade Is to state 6 tho the tire airo islon ilon of section 9 article 8 of ilia constitution upon which tile iho court bases its iti decision guarantees right of appeal in certain cases but dou does nut ro strict tile iho legislature from li canting ap peak in other cases 6 tile cont i aution does not in express s heims or by necessary implication ri atric t ahe from appeals irom from temporary lemp orain injunctions it no aus us medely ihfe intention intents on or of the framers frn niora or tile iho constitution to restrict the ihn legiel lure front from inking jakine uway away the right ot of op ap pilot in all cased of final judgments lit in tile the district courts we it ho renith a lorl balc ef of our points und additional find ask that the brief heretofore presented by us upon till alili question in muy u y bo be as a a purl part of tho the brief bocc accompany ini ing this pe pc llalon and m 1 thereto iti c our I 1 X S 1 RICHARDS attorneys for appellants 1 I franklin a one of tile tho attorneys t torness rot or ilia iho blunt 9 in the iho above neove entitled action cott cupl fy thit that in tny my 0 pinion opinion there 14 rood food icon to bellev othe judgment of the ilia court filed ff in old act action I 1 oil lit id erroneous Piron and that the said bald cause ought to bo be re 1 I FR FRANKLIN N S RIC RICHARDS HAnim we concur dickson belll i ac ellet williams yon vrn cott colt sutherland Mal shull itol jowo Ilowe a 9 lippman ru nan una line cr crutchlow brown anderaon king C V S B varlin varl in NV V C hall klopries Clo pries C dry dey frank alerce AN ERROR erron IN 14 construction A brief written by Rich richards aids fe richards accompanied tho file petition from froin w which hach the following extracts are taken A careful study of oc tile opinion of the ourt court c leads ila IIA to tile conclusion ilia bhul tile tho rulo rule applicable to lo if thi construction of tile constitution of the ho I 1 united n ted instead of at tile rulo rule applicable to Cons titu ilas hit a beet in tills Ina tunce at tho the of tho the opinion we find ilia following statement alou marit the maxim union est alt erlos the in N 1 applied 1 P 11 1 lei to determine tho the intention of alic 1 law 2 1 maker choro haro it in IH not act otherwise expressed I 1 fremed and Is in applicable to constitution ul al or statutory alch aich grant originally a power ower or OP right the statement heclo wo we have quoted la is with few exceptions a correct stilt erne timit lit of the lau nw of construe construction tion applicable to ill ahr 10 1 v cis of congress under tile C m it ution ilitch originally grants ltv power but 1 IH not applicable blo in ilia construction of state slon con which lit in no sense originally grant any poor to the tho the cah cited uy by tho the court lit in support of the iho doctrine anro cullen or of construe tion of the tie constitution of tile the slates anti and acts acia of Con congress gresa arising thero there r nud and are arc therefore not in point the samo in IA true imo in regard to iho lie front from the iho on oil statutory construction tc if tile the pinklin pi pin oldon klon under consideration ana nit cont contain alneil mi in al statute instead of hoing hoine lit tile iho con dilution the elie rule of construction 8 st applied fly by tile tho court might be 1 in that event the ahe ex cx C luelon ly by implications would only be it a restriction upon the Juris citation of 0 i aie 1 to court and not A upon ulion tile the poor pott or of the ilig As aa w we af 1 lifto iao flown in our former brief tho the rule of construction cons ruction applicable to state constitution in IH the opposite of oc that for the 0 of t tho the constitution of tho the united states aud and v As leavo lave ixon been unable to find any case or any luthor directly or trally or qualifying the rule of casz luw law that at the iho lit not a graut ernnt of to till tho Legh lature but a limitation of powers und and restrains only so no far an tile iho restriction either by bf express terms or by necessary I 1 QUESTION OF JURT SDI tho the court says bays opinion in this cw cen th the supreme court being a creature of 4 f tho lite constitution line lina only niichi su ch eigners an L a to in therein conferred upon it it IE Is true that tho 1110 supreme court Is a creat creature uril of the constitution and it la Is nine true that in the ali clivence vence of log legislative loola enactment tills court would havo have only such buch jurisdiction as an that doo document ament confere centers but bui ilia iho legislature lion hn power to confer upon it II such other jurisdiction its Is not prohibited by the constitution can call it bo be wild that it if this court had been bee creati without any definition of oc ian it s jurisdiction in the constitution it would forever havo have remained a court without jurisdiction Ceita certainly not tile tho inherent power in tho ilia le 1 lature could confer such jurisdiction UN tin gi jt t might PO love P O lit fit and tio 0 tho thi coin t hull on having gua guaranteed ranted certain rights of appeal in language clearly am u restrictive merely kind not the inherent power remains remain in the legislature to confer all other it chooses choo acs not noi iti ili conflict them with from tuo the numerous numo rouB decisions on this point aie cite generoli gene roly constitutional INTENTION N I 1 bearing in mind the ho rules rula of construction to 10 state it ft seems to us ua clear froni from a careful exam In tation of tho the sections wilona ti involved that the iho constitutional convention intended this its cc a and not an AH tin nn exclusion to upon tile question of intention it seems to u Us that the framers 0 or tile constitution were particularly Colo reful in their lan age on this lulu point section 4 m a the ilia supreme raa court hall havo have original i jurisdiction to issue writs of mantl arrous certiorari prohibition quo and habeas corpus lach of tile tho justices oho halt ll have power to writs of habeas cor pun no to any part dart of otten tho state upon leu fell by or on ot or a any person hold in ili actual VUSt custody Ody and may make rits ru return rc ible before himself or tho the supreme c ourt court or before and court or judge thereof in tha iho state blaic adopting tile ilio alow of 0 tile the court that statement ulment itt alone alon ouia ex caudo thu the 1 from ony any other or original il upon thin court that iho trained of thi athla 1 imblon this font that thin abl was va not mi an exclusive grant of power but A restriction ii hown by the s sentence oil whirl follo fluom wo jutt in other cam cala tile thi supreme Hup rm murt havu jurld oin tion if they evidently that this iha fornier language utu did nut not exclude other original jurisdiction and no it mal edelo excluded ed in ill terms an aa stated NO INCLUSION or OF POWER notice tile dirr virence in section fo 9 tt it piya irom nil all alual judgments of the lite c courts 0 arts nall b bf 0 a right of appeal to lo 1 alio llio lie supreme cour court t if it thy they intended thin 11 to 10 it bu 0 e lutille luti lve why by did if tho fralc M of this an m 0 mako make tho ilia exclusion V carsly cpr sly in section i 4 and by tin m I 1 ply only in 11 section 9 11 it t in e evident ident they unde tood ill ruin or of unit intended that this ra oil d liu ile r estrict tive onla let iet un u take ill iff p 0 li 1 enc in ili buses ruses lite appo ul may b bo e 0 on n questions of oc both law sold not T in calsee nt at the th wil icil shrill its oil off of alov liw aw alone why should tile tho fra armira fr morg mira of ON nw section expressly exclude b ly the use of lite word nord alone ilia iho 1 atlon 1 oil of ili 11 other on in 1 liw 1 w C as e a if the COnAt TULlon lion of oc tho the court li I 1 correct this word la is sur lillge it seems poems inexplicable thit that tho lie writers of 0 ono oni horl arclese should havo fo unruly many different methods of expressing their in fit ten tiong tile willie object find and lit in 0 o brief it a time again tile tho entire pei aci tence in cac ilia alil lell may ile on oil of brith lawand fact 14 entirely betak bo so under indr tile r aulo le of construction coant ruction laid cold A 0 lown o it by tile iho court ill the statement that in ill cn elwes pg nt at law V the iho shall lift on 41 qua tiona ions of liw law alone EON us 11 tillit ato a midy lot on notations of law and fact in y qu appeal ty cam wo we pen tho the cure care in ex pr arrion rion ott on the iho purl part or of the convention in n in alto tose litre of the follo Ini sentence ap all penis shall also alko llo ito front from tho the final orders and dorreen of lite ourt court in tile tho or of dece decedents dents estates and ami lit auses of guardianship ua tog bo be provided by law it if tills wan also almo intended us ua exclusive clu sive why by was not tile tho exclusion ex cx R r ed by the ila of ill word only or i Llono 78 out the method n litch tho the framers of title gittele hold adopted of expressing the exlus lon ot of power tile alie brief 1 la Irl Indor dred sed by the other attorneys as n follows fully in tin the principles of law lit in the petition and in tho the brief on tills po r nt lieret filled by tile iho fw for the iho lants in s caso case wo we respectfully join in this i petition I 1 find oik ak that a ro re hearing no be aran t d lit in this case ca that counsel for ap Pel el hints lants may ail opportunity to present tills question rully fully to lo tho the court lit in oral arT and that wo we may bo be allowed to join therein an ad outlet curiae |