Court Opinion

ID: 9829948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:45:01.433674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:09.307669
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The appellee not having filed briefs, we are not certain that we should consider his motion for a rehearing. But we have considered it and desire to make the following observations:
In the first place, appellee urges, as a reason for granting his motion for rehearing, that he never received a notice advising him when the cause would be submitted, and having no knowledge of the date of submission, he prepared and filed no briefs.
This cause was filed in the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fifth Judicial District at Dallas on April 12, 1935, and was not submitted until February 3, 1936, practically ten months after it was filed. Appellee had notice that it was on file in the Court of Civil Appeals at Dallas.
When the Supreme Court equalized the dockets of the several Courts of Civil Appeals, in June, 1935, and this cause was transferred to our court at Fort Worth, we feel quite certain that the efficient clerk of the Court of Civil Appeals at Dallas notified appellee of the transfer. We do know absolutely that on June 19, 1935, the clerk of our court wrote appellee a letter advising him of the transfer of the cause, and this letter closed with the following language : “This case is No. 13318 on the docket of this court and will likely be reached for submission sometime in January, 1936.”
A copy of this letter is in the file and is a .part of the record before us.
Appellants’ briefs were filed on January 4, 1936, and although appellee had notice *1178from the clerk of this court that his case would likely be reached “some time in January, 1936,” nevertheless he made no inquiry concerning his case, and wakes up to the fact that he has not briefed it after judgment has-been rendered against him. Furthermore, the records of this court show that notice was sent to appellee about eight weeks before the cause was submitted, advising him the date of submission.
 The next proposition that appellee presents is that the transcript is riot complete and does not correctly reflect the facts of the situation, and that if he had known this, he would have been entitled to correct the transcript before submission. This is true, but it is likewise true that it was appellee’s duty to know what was in the transcript before it was submitted, and to move to perfect the record before the cause was submitted, and it is settled law in this state that no amendment can be made to the record after a cause is once submitted.
The remaining portion of appellee’s motion deals with matters which he claims he could have shown in the record had he but known that the case was going to be submitted. And he has attached to his motion some affidavits in support of his contention. These we are without authority to consider.
He has attached also to his motion one copy of what purports to be appellee’s brief. We believe that the brief comes too late and we decline to consider it.
The motion is overruled.