Court Opinion

ID: 9646349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 12:57:37.700832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:37.526458
License: Public Domain

On Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing.
In a brief signed by Mr. Jackson Little-ton as attorney for appellant Motor Carriers, in support of their motion for rehearing, reference is made to the quotations made from the involved orders in the second to last paragraph of our original opinion, with this comment: “However, these appellants do not deem it necessary to animadvert upon the court’s lifting of the quoted phrase from two single spaced typewritten pages in the orders. It is thought certain that the court would not approve of parties presenting briefs in a cause before it in which phrases were removed from their context to serve a particular purpose.”
We thought we quoted rather fully from the involved order in companion case, No. 9900, Thompson v. Railroad Commission, Tex.Civ.App., 232 S.W.2d 139 which quotations were expressly incorporated in our original opinion herein by reference.
If these appellants, in a second motion for rehearing, will set out that portion of the context with which they desire the quotations made 'by us to be surrounded, our opinion will be altered accordingly.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.
On Appellant Motor Carriers’ Second Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant Motor Carriers now say that their remarks quoted by us on rehearing “were addressed not to the composition of the opinion but to the court’s interpretation of the orders.” They do not suggest the inclusion of any other portion of the orders in our opinion.
The motion is overruled.
Overruled.