Court Opinion

ID: 9830771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:28:00.317469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:57.284864
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The inference drawn by us that the original judgment, and not the one entered nunc pro tunc, was probably the one rendered by 'the court, was not necessary to our decision in the case, and probably should not have been stated.
We were in error in stating that testimony offered to show that the relation of attorney and client between appellant and Mr. Kingsbury had ceased before the motion for judgment nunc pro tunc was filed, should have been admitted. A further examination of the record has shown us that this testimony was hearsay.
We adhere to our opinion that under the facts of this case, it should have been shown affirmatively that Kingsbury had authority to represent appellant on the motion for the nunc pro tunc judgment. In this connection, we call attention to article 2015 of the Revised Statutes, which reads:
“Mistakes in Judgments Corrected in Open Court. — Where there shall be a mistake in the record of any judgment or decree, the judge may, in open court, and after notice of the application therefor has been given to the parties interested in" such judgment or decree, amend the same according to the truth and justice of the case, and thereafter the execution shall conform to the judgment as amended.” Wheeler v. Goffe, 24 Tex. 662; Russell v. Miller, 40 Tex. 409.
Having found, as shown by the original opinion herein, that appellant had no notice of the motion to enter judgment nunc pro tunc, nor of the entry of such judgment, and that Mr. Kingsbury had no authority to represent her on such motion further than that he was her attorney in the original proceedings, we hold that the judgment nunc pro tunc was void, for which reason we grant appellant’s motion for a rehearing, and here render judgment setting aside and v#eating said judgment nunc pro tune.
Motion granted.