Court Opinion

ID: 9644642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:01:12.91691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:16.221616
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellee Randall has filed his motion for extension of time within which to file his motion for rehearing. The opinion of this Court was delivered on September 28, 1976, and the last day for filing appel-lee’s motion for rehearing fell on October 13, 1976, but the motion was not received by this Court until October 14, 1976. Attached to appellee’s motion for extension of time was an affidavit of Ver jean Craig-head, personal secretary to appellee’s attorney, in which affiant swore that she mailed the motion for rehearing to this Court on October 12,1976. We consider the affidavit to be sufficient proof of the date of mailing under Rule 5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and have thus ordered appellee’s motion for rehearing to be filed as of the date it was received. Since there is proof that the motion was timely mailed, the filing will be timely and appellee’s motion for extension of time to file the motion for rehearing at a late date under Rule 21c is unnecessary. Appellee’s motion for extension of time is dismissed.
We noted in our opinion that the original transcript did not contain or show that an authenticated copy of the New York Judgment had been attached to appellee’s affidavit for summary judgment. A supplemental transcript containing the authenticated judgment has been forwarded to this Court by the Clerk of the trial court with the notation, “Filed as Attachment to Affidavit for Summary Judgment 7-26-74 but inadvertently omitted from original transcript.” We have ordered the supplemental transcript filed in this Court.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing has been considered and we find no reason to change our original opinion. Appellee’s motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.