Court Opinion

ID: 9831800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:21:59.191749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:38.069427
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant V. W. Mills, on his motion for rehearing, has called our attention to an error in the statement of the appeal perfected by Charles Brackens. This appellant did not brief his case, and we understood at the. time of the original opinion that he appealed from an order denying his right’to intervene. In this we were in error, for the record shows that he was allowed to intervene, and the motion filed after appellant Mills had filed his appeal bond was a motion to correct judgment, and cause it to show that he had furnished the money to discharge the lien on an agreement with appellees, Moore and wife, that he would be subrogated to their rights and decree such subrogation.
The motion was presented to the court in term time, and, in view of the judgment entered by the trial court, he should have been permitted to file it, notwithstanding the perfection of the appeal by Mills, for the court has authority to correct its judgments, notwithstanding an appeal is pending. McNairy v. Castleberry, 6 Tex. 286; Ramsey v. McCauley, 9 Tex. 106, 58 Am. Dec. 134; Thomson v. Bishop, 29 Tex. 154; Cowan v. Ross, 28 Tex. 227; De Hymel v. Mortgage Co., 80 Tex. 493, 16 S. W. 311. However, because of the modification of the judgment made by this court, the correction sought by Brackens is not necessary to protect his rights pending the trial of the case on its merits. For which reason, the judgment reversing and remanding the case as to Brack-ens is set aside and the case is affirmed, without prejudice to Brackens’ rights to establish the facts alleged in his motion at the trial of the case on its merits.
Motion for rehearing granted in part and overruled in part.