where defendants included in the record information that, if properly presented, would suggest a meritorious defense, they should have an opportunity to present that information
How later courts described this case
- where defendants included in the record information that, if properly presented, would suggest a meritorious defense, they should have an opportunity to present that information
- where defendants included in the record information that, if properly *76 presented, would suggest a meritorious defense, they should have an opportunity to present that information
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*35 On Motion for Rcargnment
Present: Jeffords, C. J., Cleary, Adams, Chase and Hulbard, JJ.
Adams, J.
After the foregoing opinion was promulgated, the defendants filed a motion for reargument. The ground of the motion is that we overlooked and did not consider certain portions of their brief when we said that they did not brief the grounds of their motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence and the first two grounds of their motion to set aside the verdict as not supported by the evidence.
They direct our attention to certain pages in that part of their brief wherein they briefed an exception to the charge of the court and to certain pages in their reply brief. They now say that certain statements in their main brief were misplaced and should have been in that part of their brief that pertains to the grounds collectively of their motions to set aside the verdict. They also point out certain statements in their reply brief.
The statements in question when considered with that part of their brief in which they appear pertain and apply with other arguments to the exception to the charge in regard to an implied contract. We did not overlook them. We gave them due consideration with the remainder of the briefs on the point where the defendants placed them. If they wished them to apply also to another question, it was their duty to so state. We do not search the briefs and attempt to rearrange them for the purpose of ascertaining the points or exceptions to which the various parts apply. We assume that the one who made and compiled a brief has stated what he considers applicable for our consideration on each question upon which he relies.
Furthermore, the statements that the defendants now wish us to consider as applicable to the grounds of their motions that we said were not briefed, do not, when considered by themselves, adequately brief those grounds. As so presented, they were not therefore, for consideration. State v. Calkins, 117 Vt 539, 96 A2d 815 .
*36 Failure to adequately brief or present a case does not afford a ground for a rehearing. Turner v. Bragg, 113 Vt 393, 405, 35 A2d 356 , and cases cited.
Motion for reargument denied. Let full entry go down.