Court Opinion

ID: 9642255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:53:03.473233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:45.278541
License: Public Domain

Opinion on Appellant’s Motion For Rehearing
It appears both Appellant and Appellees are mystified by the reference in our original opinion to the fact that at the hearing held on March 12, 1982, Mr. Hoppess testified “he and his associate were on Christmas vacation from December 24, through January 3.... ”
At page 58 of the Statement of Facts pertaining to that hearing, Mr. Hoppess testified as follows:
On December the 23rd, 1981, Mr. Thomas Cook on behalf of Matador Pipelines, the defendent [sic] in this cause of action — or rather on December 24th, 1981, a Plea of Privilege filed by Mr. Thomas Cook for and on behalf of Matador Pipelines was received in my offices located at 914 Main, Suite 1717. On that date myself and my associate had left for vacation and were not there to receive it.
*951Also simultaneously- at that time my office was in the process of being moved and consolidated with Dyche and Wright at 815 Walker, Suite 1600.
From the context, we believe Mr. Hop-pess was referring to an “associate” in his Houston office at 914 Main St., and not to John Fultz of Navasota, Texas.
With the exception of this clarification, our opinion of April 14, 1982 remains unchanged. Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing is overruled.