
    John Sauls et al., Appellants, vs. D. Freeman et al., County Commissioners of Volusia County, Appellees.
    1. A petition for a rehearing which suggests nothing that has not been fully considered by the court in making its decision, should be denied.
    2. A petition for a rehearing which is either a reargument of points made in the briefs and argument of the cause, or which assumes any new ground or position not taken before, is a violation of Supreme Court Rule 24 regulating the practice as to such petitions.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia county upon petition for rehearing.
    The facts are stated in the report of the main case.
    
      Foster & Gunby and John W. Price for the Petition, per Curian.
    
   The petition for a rehearing filed in this cause has been considered. It suggests nothing that had not been carefully considered by ns in reaching the conclusions set forth in the main opinion.

In so far as the petition is a reargnment or assumes any new ground or position not taken before, it is clearly in violation of Supreme Court Rule 21, and the practice of this court, as has been settled by the adjudications. Smith vs. Croom, 7 Fla., 180; First Nat. Bank vs. Ashmead, 2 So. Reptr., 665; s. c. 23 Fla., 379.

A rehearing is denied.  