Court Opinion

ID: 9664626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:23:31.168121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:07.875326
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S SECOND MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellant has filed his second motion for rehearing in which, among other things, he requests that this court order his original transcript be supplemented or that he be permitted to amend the transcript to include the depositions that were omitted from the original transcript.
(1) On July 12, 1973, the transcript of this case (without any depositions) was filed in the Court of Civil Appeals.
(2) On August 28, 1973, appellant filed his motion to supplement the record in this case by bringing up one of the depositions that was on file with the trial court.
(3) On September 5, 1973, appellees filed their response contesting appellant’s motion.
(4) On October 4, 1973, this court granted appellant’s motion to supplement the record by bringing up the one deposition.
(5) On October 16, 1973, the appellees filed their brief in this cause. The preliminary statement in that brief re-urged ap-pellees’ prior objections to the motion to supplement the record and contained, as its Counterpoint No. 1, the following :
“The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed because appellant has not brought to this court a sufficient record for his appeal to be considered on its merits.”
The statement under Counterpoint No. 1 specifically called to the attention of this court and the appellant the absence of six additional depositions.
(6) On November 20, 1973, the case was submitted and orally argued to this court.
(7) On January 17, 1974, this court af firmed the judgment of the trial court.
(8) On January 28, 1974, the appellant for the first time, sought to bring up the six omitted depositions.
This record reflects that appellant has been aware for five months, which was long before the submission and oral argument of this case to this court, of the necessity for such depositions to be brought up as a part of the record in this case and of appellees’ contention that such depositions were necessary. During all of this period appellant made no effort to bring up the remaining depositions. It was sub*320sequent to this court’s written decision affirming the trial court’s judgment before he made any effort to bring up these omitted depositions.
Appellant’s request that the original transcript be supplemented to include the omitted depositions is not timely made and must be denied. Sympson v. Mor-Win Products, Inc., 501 S.W.2d 362 (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth, 1973, n.w.h. reported as of now), and Coleman v. Pacific Employers Insurance Co., 484 S.W.2d 449 (Tex.Civ. App., Tyler, 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
Appellant’s motion for rehearing in its entirety has been considered and is respectfully overruled.