Court Opinion

ID: 9829285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:09:46.934735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:59.501476
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
This court was misled by the date of the affidavit to the motion for new trial, which was on February 2, 1926, while the motion was filed on January 21, 1926. The motion for new trial was filed, as claimed by appellant, on January 21, 1926, and was verified by affidavit on February 2, thereafter, and the original opinion is amended so as to express these facts.
It was not intended to reflect on any one by stating the fact that the motion for new trial did not give the name of the attorney who permitted, without remonstrance, a judgment by default to be taken against his client. This court might have charged the attorney who signed the motion with the failure to interpose and prevent the default judgment, but did not deem it necessary to do so, and sees no use in surmising about it now.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.