Court Opinion

ID: 9831369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:01:44.517015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:34.011778
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellants’ motion for rehearing does not state the names and addresses of the adverse parties, nor of their attorneys, and on the ground that this omission is fatal, ap-pellees have filed a motion to strike it out.
Article 1641, Revised Civil Statutes 1911, requires that a motion for rehearing in the Courts of Civil Appeals shall specify—
“the name .and residence of the counsel of the opposing party if known, and if not known then the name and residence of the opposing party as shown in the record.”
Rule 63 (142 S. W. xvi) for the Courts of Civil Appeals is as follows:
“Motions for rehearing shall be made and conducted solely in accordance with the statute, which describes the manner of this proceeding.”
On the question raised by appellees’ motion, our Supreme Court has held:
“A motion for rehearing in the supreme court, if one of several opposing parties to the proceeding is not represented by counsel, should state the name and residence of the party, that a copy of the motion may be served on him; and in such case, where no service is sought or obtained, the motion will not be entertained.” Fifteenth syllabus, Howard v. McKenzie, 54 Tex. 171, 173.
But this case is distinguished from the case just’ cited by the fact that appellees’ counsel herein were duly served with a copy of the motion for rehearing, and have appeared and answered by this motion to strike. We think the question is ruled J)y Railway Co. v. Davis, 32 S. W. 163, where Judge Key, speaking for the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third district, said:
*892“But the argument is that the motion was fundamentally defective, and should not be regarded as a motion for a rehearing, because it failed to state the names and residences of appellee’s counsel, as required by statute; and, second, that, this court not having its attention called to the motion, and having adjourned without considering it, the motion has been abandoned, and this court has lost jurisdiction of the case. We cannot agree with either of these contentions. Though the motion was defective in failing to state the names and residences of appellee’s counsel, the 'clerk obtained that information from other sources, and had the motion served on appellee’s counsel. The defect was not jurisdictional.” ‘
Appellees’ motion to strike is overruled.
After carefully considering the motion for rehearing, we have concluded that it also should be overruled.