The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-07-02
THE APPELLATE COURTS
Should Motions for Rehearine Be Disposed
Of at Present Terms?
OPEN LETTER TO THE APPELLATE COURTS
Have These Courts Power to Con-
tipue Motions for Rchenrfng
Until the Next Terms.
OPEN LETTER TO THE APPELLATE COuR'
To the Editor Of The Post.

| take the liberty OF writing this open let
each case pending in said courts, calling
their attention to what conceive the law
to be governing such questions.
After an investigation | am unable to
ind any provisions in the constitution or
statutes Tor the decisions ofVour supreme
COURT giving the appellate courts. or any
OF them, the power to continue, from ore
regular term to the next regular term, mo-
tons for rehearng, to correct amend and
reform their said Judgments motions To
alter, annul or vacate the judgments, rem
dered at one term, at the next succeeding
term.
Where our appellate courts have rem
dered judgments at heir present terms
| iron lS9S-1 1899 affirming, reforming, re-
Yersing and rendering or reversing and
Remaining Judgments of the lower courts
IL, seems that all of their said judgme n S
become finalities at the expiration of their
present terms. And their jurisdiction then
and there ceases, TO change, alter, vacate
amend. reform. annul or set aside (at
any future time, at succeeding terms
their Judgments. duly made and regularly
entered at the present terms-unless mo-
present terms of the appellate courts and
said courts have, partially. granted said
motions, reopened the CASSIDY setting
aside their judgments, by giving said cases
a reconsideration and continuing the cases
las pending cases, having first set aside
their judgments ana granted new trials
at the present terms) for determination,
at succeeding terms. Can litigants---after
the expiration of the present terms of our
appellate courts file motions for rehearing
TO amend and reform judgments. etc, and
secure said courts action on same at the
next lS99- 1907 terms of our appellate
courts? l think not. | know that the
foregoing proposi .ons will seem new and
novel. But my position is sustained by
our supreme Court decisions and the Ian
guage OF the statute and the rules--when
they are carefully analyzNd. | am aware
OF the fact that in two or three cases
Clones ct al VS.. City of Henrietta, Al
$. w. r., discontinued from 1906 1891
term to 1897 1898 tenn, and Houston and
Texas Central Railway Company VS.. Da-
Wis 80 S w. r., discontinued from 1894
1895 term to 1890 1896 term, and McMiclle
VS.. National Bank % s. w. r. 42S, c.
C. A., 2l0-cOntlnued from 1892 1898 term
to 1Sg3-iS9i term have been carried over
from one term to another without the APP
pellae courts granting new trials OF
setting aside their judgments But said
cases were decided by the courts of civil
Appeals, ana not the supreme court and
thelr opinions cite no authorities SHOW
ing that they had the power to thus con-
tinue said motions for rehearing. with
out. at least first setting aside their iudg-
ments and granting new trials al said for
mer terms. thus reopening the cases, re-
serving TO themselves the privilege OF ad-
hellns 10 or receding IRON their hrst
Judgments at me latter terms--where con-
81, cod
tinuances are granted IN penang cases III
the same manner as they are In the Dis
'rict ana coaniy courts.
lheh again N the last Two named cases
''5 y W. H. no ana = - a., IN the
motions were oVefruied ana no Judgment
was set ASIDE vacated ahnuiied hor al
tered Ana IN inc hrst named case al
y W. X" .@o' aiso IN 10 . w: Is" $50
the court OF clTll appeals IN thelr major
ny OPINION state sulhelent reasons snow
ing that the parties had good grounds for
an equitable proceeding to sci aside, va
cate and amend their former judgment,
In the same manner that district court
would nave uone.
And In said case GAG s, w. X, STD JUS
tice stephens wrote dissenting opinion.
saying that the court mad no power TO act
on said motion for rehearing al sue
ceeding term to the one at which thtcase
was FIRST decided BY the court OF civil APP
peals
NOW, there Is nothlng IN Revised stat
utes, Arts. 9ii-HSl. loSo-lo33, and sup. CT.
Rules, 1-3, and Cts CIV. Appls Rules,
eS-bb, authorizing the appellate courts TO
continue motions Tor rehearlng from one
term to another, where they have rem
oered ana mai entered Judgments, afnrm-
ing reforming, reversing aud rendering, or
reversing and remanding the lower
court JUDGMENTS.
Articles 9l and aSl provide that any
party TO a cause may file a motion for
ieheerlng etc, within fifteen days after
the date OF entry OF the judgment or de-
cl5ion of the court; provided thar
should The court adjourn witnln less time
than hf'een days after the rendition OF Inc
Judgment 1t may make shch rules and
regulations IN reference 10 the ming OF
the motion as 10 II may seem best Tor the
promotion OF the interest," OF all the parties
concerned,
Article Isl. Al any tiine' AFTER hFe
Gays from me return OF such precept
served. II shall be iawtul TOT SAID supreme
court TO hear and determine such motion
for rehearlng, and not sooner
NOW article lV3u ana arucie lu"3' gov
erning the courts 0, olVli Appeals, as 10
motions for rehearine are similar TO
articles stI ana 9sl. quoted above, ana
there IL no other law on the suoJeet. Inc
supreme court mas never adopted any
rules extendlns t5c authority or giving
more power 10 the appellate courts over
motions ior rehearlng' III regard 10 con-
tinuing the same from one term TO an