Court Opinion

ID: 9830834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:32:37.51366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:27.433297
License: Public Domain

On Motion to .File Motion for Rehearing After Time.
Judgment in this case was rendered in this, court on January 21, 1925, and on February 9th thereafter, appellant, by motion, reguests permission to be allowed to file a motion for rehearing.
It is admitted that Mathews & Overson, attorneys for appellant, duly received notice in their law office of the disposition of the case in this court, but that Mr. Overson was absent at the time said notice reached the office on business, and on his return, one week after the judgment in this court had been rendered, he was called to Eastland county, and left for that place the next morning; that on Monday after leaving for Eastland county on the preceding Thursday, he learned that it was impossible for him to return to his office to prepare a motion for rehearing; that he prepared a partial motion and forwarded to his partner at Floy-dada, to which place he returned February 6th, and learned shortly thereafter that his partial motion had not been received at the office alid completed and forwarded to the clerk of this court.
No reason appears in the motion before us why Mr. Overson’s partner failed to file a motion for rehearing, except that Mr.' Over-son was giving his personal attention to the case. The only reason given by Mr. Overson for failing to file a motion on time is his other engagements.
In our opinion sufficient cause is not shown for failing to file the motion on time. Alley v. Bessemer Gas Engine Go. (Tex. Civ. App.) 228 S. W. 967, and authorities-there cited.
The motion is overruled.