Court Opinion

ID: 9774598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:25:57.667477+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:11.209595
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant has filed a motion for rehearing and a motion under Rule 453, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, requesting that we file conclusions of fact and law relating to her points 6, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20 and 22.
Appellant’s points 12, 15 and 20 have been duly considered in our original opinion. Appellant’s brief does not contain a point 22.
In her sixth point, which we overruled without full discussion in our original opinion, appellant complains that the judgment is defective in that it recites that “by agreement of the parties the Queen Insurance Company of America paid into the registry of the District Court the sum of $8,510.66” whereas, she contends such insurance company did not pay such money into the registry of the court because of any stipulation. Obviously there is no merit to this point since it is admitted by both parties that the sum of $8,510.66 was deposited in the registry of the District Court and the third-party defendant Queen Insurance Company of America was duly disposed of by the trial judge in his judgment. Therefore, such point becomes immaterial and is overruled.
In her sixteenth point appellant asserts that she was deprived of the right to be informed of corrections by the trial court on certain bills of exceptions. However, she wholly fails to show any error in that regard or that she has been denied any bills of exception to which she was legally entitled. The point is overruled.
By her eighteenth point appellant asserts that the judgment should be set aside because “defendant has a merit ous cause of action and a gross injustice will be done if a new trial is not granted.” In support of this general point appellant complains that one of her counsel refused to file a trial amendment which she had prepared but, instead drew a trial amendment which she refused permission for her attorney to file. The record shows that appellant had several lawyers throughout the proceedings herein involved and that she apparently has been unable to agree with any one of them as to how the case should have been presented. She is now representing herself. Certainly it would be unfair to the appellee, and to the Court, to permit a party to take advantage of a situation as thus presented. Appellant chose her own attorneys and the fact that she was unable to agree with them on procedure affords her no ground for granting a new trial. Appellant’s point is overruled.
Again and in deference to appellant’s status as a layman we have carefully examined all of her points raised on motion for rehearing. There is nothing in said motion to cause us to change our original opinion and therefore said motion is overruled.