Court Opinion

ID: 9829530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:24:29.484955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:02.674643
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant insists that appellee’s counsel agreed to an extension of time within which the record might be filed in this court. We do not construe the affidavits filed as extending beyond an agreement that the statement of facts and bills of .exceptions might be filed back within the time required by law. This agreement was complied with. The certificate of the clerk shows that thereafter the record would have been completed two days in advance of the time limit for filing in this court had appellant’s counsel made the request. The record shows entire want of diligence on appellant’s part. Since, however, appellant insists that there was an agreement extending the time for filing the record in this court, we direct attention to the'case of Payne v. Campbell (Tex. Civ. App.) 259 S. W. 693, 694, from which we quote: “Agreements between counsel affecting the substantial rights of their clients ought to be reduced to writing. C. C. A. rule 46. When this is not done *824the court will not decide between conflicting affidavits of opposing counsel asserting and denying such agreements, but will- leave tbe parties where their own conduct would place them in the absence of such, alleged agreements.”
Motion is overruled.
Overruled.