Court Opinion

ID: 9653425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:46:32.952986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:59.106324
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
MASSEY, Chief Justice.
In their motion for rehearing appellees assert, “The Court of Civil Appeals erred in withdrawing its former opinion affirming the Trial Court’s judgment, in that this case has been decided by a two-judge Court, The Honorable Justice Renfro having heretofore chosen to disqualify himself, and the present opinion of the two-judge Court is a tie, there being a dissenting opinion.”
Appellees are in error in assuming that Justice Renfro disqualified himself. He has not at any time disqualified himself.
Justice Renfro listened to the oral arguments. After the case was submitted he expressed his desire to the other members of the Court, in chambers, not to participate in the case unless his vote was necessary to break a deadlock. Chief Justice Massey and Justice Langdon agreed on an opinion affirming the trial court’s judgment, hence, it was unnecessary for Justice Renfro to participate. The opinion was handed down January 31, 1969.
After appellant’s motion was filed Justice Langdon decided the January 31st opinion should be withdrawn and an opinion written reversing and remanding the case for trial on the merits. The Chief Justice adhered to his original opinion. Thus there was a deadlock and it became necessary for Justice Renfro to participate and cast the deciding vote.
Justice Renfro agreed with Justice Lang-don. Accordingly Justice Langdon handed down an opinion on March 14, 1969, with*427drawing the January 31st opinion and reversing and remanding the case for trial on the merits. Justice Renfro fully participated in the deliberations leading up to the Langdon opinion, and agreed with and voted with Justice Langdon. The opinion was, therefore, a majority opinion.
Justice Renfro was not disqualified to participate and vote on the second opinion even though, for personal reasons, he chose not to participate in the opinion handed down on January 31, 1969. Goslin v. Beazley, 339 S.W.2d 689 (Houston, Tex.Civ.App., 1960, writ ref., n. r. e.).
Because of the views expressed in the dissenting opinion I would grant appel-lee’s motion for rehearing and affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, I agree with Judge Langdon that Judge Ren-fro was not disqualified to vote on the opinion of March 14th.
The other members of the court hereby overrule the appellee’s motion for rehearing, with me dissenting.