
    No. 2805.
    Harris v. Bratton. Williams v. Same. DeLoach v. Same.
    November Term, 1890.
    This was a petition for the rehearing of these three cases. See ante 259. .The petition alleged errors of law and fact in the opinion, contended that a decision could not be rendered by the two Associate Justices (the Chief Justice having heard the appeal, but died before decision rendered), and that the Circuit Judge having excluded declarations of the donor, because he was otherwise satisfied of the creation of the trust, this court should not have dismissed the complaint, but should have afforded plaintiffs opportunity of now producing the evidence excluded.
    Note. The November Term of 1890 convened on the 25th day of that month, Chief Justice Simpson and Associate Justices Mclver and McGowan, a full court, being present. The court took a recess for Christmas on December 19. On the 26th day of December, Chief Justice Simpson -died after an illness of a very few days, and the vacancy thus produced was not filled until December, 1891. At the close of this term, about the end of January, 1890, Associate Justice McGowan was taken very ill, and his illness continued until after the time fixed for the April term of 1891. On December 1,1891, Associate Justice Mclver was elected Chief Justice and qualified on the same day, and on December 3, 1891, the Honorable Young J. Pope (then Attorney General) was elected an Associate Justice to fill the unexpired term of Justice Mclver, and he qualified the same day and took his seat on the bench on the next succeeding day.
    Therefore it is that Associate Justices Mclver and McGowan are the only two members of the Supreme Court who took part in any of the opinions or orders to be found in this volume, all of them having been filed between the date of the death of Chief Justice Simpson and the date of the elevation of Chief Justice Mclver. The next succeeding volume will commence with eases of November term, 1891. — Reporter.
    November 27, 1891.
   The following order was passed:

Per Curiam.

We have carefully examined this petition, and finding that no material fact or important principle of law has been overlooked or misunderstood, there is no ground for a rehearing. It is therefore ordered, that this petition be dismissed.  