Court Opinion

ID: 9829834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:40:14.482668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:07.422262
License: Public Domain

On Motion to File Motion for Rehearing After Time.
[5] The appellant, by motion, requests that we permit him to file his motion for rehearing. His motion therefor reached this court one day after time allowed by statute. Notice of the affirmance was mailed by the clerk of this court to the attorneys of appellant on the day the opinion was handed down. Y. W. Holmes, one of his attorneys, resides at Comanche, Tex., and the notice reached him February 11th. On that day he wrote for a copy of the opinion and transcript, and received the copy by mail February 16th, and the transcript by express February 17th. He states that immediately he began to prepare the motion for rehearing, and continued thereon diligently, éxcept as interrupted by the business of his office and some delay caused by sickness in his family, but this is not shown to have been such as to keep him from his business. He sent the motion by ex-, press to the clerk of this court February 23d, and if connections had been made and the express transferred the motion could have arrived at this court February 24th, the last day for filing, but it did not arrive until the day after. Mr. Holmes shows he was in possession of the opinion eight days before he sought to express the motion. There were only two assignments presented in the brief, and only those two were considered in the opinion.' The briefs of both parties give fully the essentials of the pleadings and the evidence, and the trial court filed findings of fact, which were adopted by this court and copied in the opinion.' The record of the case shows that Messrs. Kimbrough, Underwood & Jackson were associated with . Mr. Holmes in the case, both in the trial court and in this court; their names are signed to the pleadings and briefs; their residence is Amarillo, where this court holds its sessions. Notice was mailed to them, as well as to Mr. Holmes. The motion to file for rehearing presents no excuse or explanation why the firm of lawyers at Amarillo did not prepare the motion, or could not have done so. The assignments presenting the error of this court complained of must necessarily have required but a short motion within itself. If the citation of additional authorities and an argument were deemed necessary to elucidate and remove the erroneous view of the court, it was not necessarily required to be filed with the motion, or as part of it, but could have been filed before submission of the motion.
We do not think it is shown that 8 days was necessary or required to prepare and file the motion for rehearing. The motion was not sent by express until the last moment. It would seem the postal service would have been the more expeditious carrier, instead of risking the connections and transfer of express at Brownwood. We see no reason for the delay in the preparation of the motion until the arrival of the transcript by express, and none is shown. If Mr. Holmes was the only attorney in the case, we do not believe that it is shown that the delay was occasioned by such circumstances as would be deemed good cause; but he had associated with him an able firm of lawyers in the city where this court is located, and who were notified, and no reason or excuse is offered why these attorneys could not file the motion in time. It was the business of the attorneys for appellant to see that a motion for rehearing was filed in time, and when there is neglect, or no valid excuse is given, the motion for leave to file after the expiration of 15 days, as prescribed by statute, will be denied. Article 1641, R. C. S.; Kneeland v. Miles, 25 *968S. W. 486; Railway Co. v. Grigsby, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 639, 35 S. W. 815, 36 S. W. 496; Sams v. Creager, 85 Tex. 497, 22 S. W. 399; Myers v. Prey, 102 Tex. 527, 119 S. W. 1142. We do not think Mr. Holmes has shown good cause sufficient to authorize the filing of á motion for rehearing and especially is his motion wanting in failing to show that his associate counsel could not have done so. The appellee in this case is objecting to the filing of the motion for rehearing, and, as the statute gives it the legal right to demand that the motion be filed in time, unless a valid excuse is presented, we do not feel authorized to deprive it of that right.
We believe the motion should be denied, and it will therefore be overruled.