Court Opinion

ID: 9831117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:49:35.261536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:31.262434
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[4] It is suggested that under rule 8 for the Courts of Civil Appeals (142 S. W. xi) the motion to dismiss should have been filed within 30 days after the filing of the record in this court. That rule has no application when a question of jurisdiction is involved, nor can it apply to a motion to dismiss for failure to file briefs.
[5] It is also contended that the usual rule concerning the necessity for correcting the record in the trial court would not apply, for the reason that the issue whether the petition for writ of error was filed on August 12, 1919, is one affecting the jurisdiction of this court. We hold this contention to be well taken, and withdraw the suggestion to the effect that it was necessary to correct the record in the trial court. W. U. Tel. Co. v. O’Keefe, 87 Tex. 423, 28 S. W. 945.
[6, 7] There being nothing in the transcript to indicate that any clerical error was made in the thi;ee notations of the date of filing, all of which are alike, and there being a presumption in favor of the regularity of official acts, evidence relied on to convince this court that it has jurisdiction should go further than merely to show that a petition was mailed at San Antonio, which in due course of mail should have reached the clerk 10 days before the date indicated by his file marks. Such evidence might raise a presumption that the clerk received the petition on August 12, 1919, in the absence of any other evidence, but this presumption is counterbalanced by the pre*287sumption that the clerk placed his file mark thereon in accordance with the requirements of the law.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.