# Norton v. Standard Coosa-Thatcher Company

> Tennessee Supreme Court · June 6, 1958 · 203 Tenn. 649

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9858698

## Case

- **Full name:** Oscar L. Norton v. Standard Coosa-Thatcher Company, Et Al.
- **Court:** Tennessee Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 6, 1958
- **Citations:** 203 Tenn. 649; 7 McCanless 649; 315 S.W.2d 245; 1958 Tenn. LEXIS 230
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Burnett
- **Cited by:** 19 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/9858698

## Opinion text

On Behearing
The defendants have filed herein a courteous, dignified and to the point petition to rehear. This petition pre *658 sents the sole question that we overlooked the motion of the defendants, seasonably made, to strike the appellant’s assignments of errors for failure to file these assignments within the time as provided by Rule 14 of this Court.
We, as a matter of fact, did not overlook this motion but thought it would not be necessary to mention it in view of the conclusion we reached in our original opinion. In this opinion we concluded, for reasons therein stated, that the defendant was not prejudiced by reason of the delay.
There are’many authorities which declare that the rules of court should be strictly adhered to, both by the parties and by the court. We think that the proper rule to apply, in applying our Rules, is stated in 21 C.J.S. Courts sec. 178, p. 284, thus:
“* '* * rules of court are but a means to accomplish the ends of justice, and that the court has the power to modify, suspend, or rescind its own rules whenever justice requires it, at least where no party is prejudiced thereby; * *
We do not of course wish to be in the position of applying a rule of foot in enforcing these rules but the Court should administer them in a discretionary manner. When it appears to the Court that no harm can be done to the one who makes the motion to enforce the Rule, and that an injustice would be done by enforcing the Rule, then the Court should use grace and discretion' in administering the rule. If circumstances demand, an imposition of terms may be applied. In the present case we did not *659 think that harm was done the movent by failing to enforce the rule strictly, while we felt that harm might be done’the party failing to comply with the rule by enforcing it. It was for this reason that we now overrule the motion to strike.
As a result of what is said above the petition to rehear must be denied with costs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9858698. Public record. Not legal advice.