Court Opinion

ID: 9777382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:09:04.1775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:53.366840
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
Appellants’ motion to file a supplemental transcript and appellees’ reply to such motion were considered with the appeal on the merits. Appellant Sidney Rav-kind had timely filed an appeal bond and transcript, and this Court had jurisdiction over the appeal. An amended appeal bond was filed in the trial court to include the other appellants, and appellants’ motion sought permission to file a supplemental *473transcript to include the amended appeal bond.
The intention of the appellants other than Mr. Ravkind to appeal is indicated by their notice of appeal as recited in the judgment in the trial court, by their formal notice of appeal and by the use of the plural “plaintiffs” in the first paragraph of the first appeal bond.
Under Rule 430, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and on authority of Kimberly Development Corp. v. First State Bank, 404 S.W.2d 631 (Houston 1st, Tex.Civ.App.1966, writ ref., n. r. e.), and the cases cited therein, we permitted the filing of the supplemental transcript.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.