# Moore v. Cole

> Tennessee Supreme Court · April 5, 1956 · 200 Tenn. 43

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9766615

## Case

- **Full name:** Lizzie B. Moore, v. Edna Harris Cole, Et Al.
- **Court:** Tennessee Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 5, 1956
- **Citations:** 200 Tenn. 43; 4 McCanless 43; 289 S.W.2d 695; 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 375
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Buketett
- **Judges:** Burnett, Swepston, Buketett
- **Cited by:** 42 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9766615

## Opinion text

On Petition to Rehear.
Buketett, Justice.
We have before us a courteous and dignified petition to rehear. The petition is based on the ground that “the Court did not discuss, and apparently, did not consider the assignments of error properly and legally raised by Lizzie B. Moore to the opinion of the Court of Appeals as set out in her brief to this Honorable Court”.
These assignments are then set forth along with an extensive argument in support thereof.
Obviously this same question was before us originally. It was ably argued before this Court in oral argument. We intended our opinion to cover the question. We did *56 not take up the respective positions of both parties— each side assigned errors — seriatim but it was our intension to cover the question by the opinion we prepared. We think a careful analysis of the opinion will so show.
We made an effort, “to canvass the evidence or sift the evidence” (Assignment A here) for any and all evidence of an ouster herein and to say and determine whether or not there was an ouster here. We concluded, even under the evidence here reargued, that there was not sufficient evidence of ouster in law to take this case to a jury if it had been a jury case. We did not say this in the words just used but this is what we meant by the analysis of the factual situation in this case as applied to the law.
For this reason the petition to rehear must be overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9766615. Public record. Not legal advice.