Case Name: BATSON-MILHOLME CO. v. FAULK
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-05-14
Citations: 211 S.W. 972
Docket Number: App. No. 11154; Mo. No. 4510
Parties: BATSON-MILHOLME CO. v. FAULK.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 211
Pages: 972–972

Head Matter:
(109 Tex. 480)
BATSON-MILHOLME CO. v. FAULK.
(App. No. 11154; Mo. No. 4510.)
(Supreme Court of Texas.
May 14, 1919.)
Appeal and Eeeoe &wkey;>833(4) — Reheaeing— Motion — Impeopee Mattes.
A motion for rehearing the action of the Supreme Court in refusing a writ of error, which in effect charges the, court with negligently considering the question involved and obstinately refusing to be governed by controlling authorites, will not he considered but will be stricken from tte files.
Action by C. E. Faulk against the Batson-Milhome Company. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals <209 S. W. 837). From a d«nial of an application for writ of error, defendant moves for rehearing.
Motion stricken from the files.
Harry p. Lawther, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.
Woods, King & John, of Houston, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
PHILLIPS, C. J.
There is matter contained in the motion for rehearing filed for the plaintiff in error directed to our action in refusing a writ of error which we do not think has any proper place in a document £(ddressed to this court. It is said in effect that the question involved has only been carelessly considered by this court and the sev-eral Courts of Civil Appeals which have passed upon it. The contrary is true with respect to this court's action, and we believe it to be equally true in respect to the action of the Courts of Civil Appeals. It is furthermore intimated that this court's denial of the writ of error was due to an- obstinate refusal to be governed by what the counsel for plaintiff in error advanced as controlling authorities on the question. The spirit of the motion as revealed by its language is captious and sarcastic. Only a broad charity would prevent its being characterized as intentionally disrespectful. The question involved in the ease received -at our hands a painstaking investigation. We regarded it as correctly determined by the Court of Civil Appeals, whatever conflict may be found in the reasoning of the different Courts of Civil Appeals upon it. We are willing to accord the utmost liberty to counsel in the presentation of cases here. But the court owes it to itself not to consider a motion couched in suc-h terms as this one is and it will not consider the motion. Such a document can serve no office in this court and has no place here. It is ordered that it be stricken from the files.
^xoFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes