The opinion
Opinion on Petition to Rehear.
The Court of Appeals, having found that there was material evidence for plaintiff, but, in effect, that the great weight of the evidence was with the defendant, nevertheless affirmed the action of the trial court is sustaining a motion for a directed verdict, on the ground that the Federal rule of practice applied in a case brought under the Federal Employers’ Act. This Court, for reasons stated in our original opinion, held that the State rule of practice governs in all trials in our State Courts, reversed the judgment and remanded the case.
By petition to rehear it is submitted that this Court should have passed upon other reasons suggested in the Court of Appeals and on argument in this Court for sustaining the motion for a directed verdict, among them that plaintiff was cut off by assumption of risk and his *494 own negligence, and it is insisted "that this Court should affirm, if the result was correct, despite error in the reasons given by the lower court.
No petition was filed in this Court for defendant Bailway Company, and the sole question raised by the petition for certiorari of plaintiff was the action of the Court of Appeals above set forth. This had the effect of limiting* this Court to the consideration of that question. This Court "does not review a case before it on writ of certiorari as if here on broad appeal. Neither the Act of 1925, (Chap. 100, Section 14), nor the practice generally on writs of ceritorari so contemplates. See Tri-State Fair v. Rowton, 140 Tenn., 304, 306 ; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Brook, 132 Tenn., 477 ; Lillard v. Tolliver, 154 Tenn., 394 ; Brown v. Brown, 196 S. W., 356 , and other cases cited in the opinion in the last styled case at page 360. In view of this rule of practice, and since the case was being-sent bach for a new trial, this Court purposely pretermitted any comment on the facts.
An answer to the -query suggested in the concluding paragraph of the petition as to whether or not any case under the Federal Act could be tried in our State Courts, if the rule of Federal practice invoked should be held to apply thereto, involves an expression from this Court not called for in this record; however, it perhaps suggests another practical difficulty incident to the effort to conform our State practice to the Federal rule.
The petition must be dismissed.