Gibson v. McCullough, 11727
| Decision Date | 03 October 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 11727,11727 |
| Citation | 294 S.W.2d 759 |
| Parties | L. D. GIBSON, Appellant, v. E. H. McCULLOUGH, Appellee. Motion |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Snodgrass & Smith, Clifton, H. Tupper, San Angelo, for appellant.
Little & Gilliland, Big Spring, Runge, Hardeman, Smith & Foy, San Angelo, for appellee.
On August 8, 1956 in Motion No. 11,720, we overruled appellant's motion for extension of time to file transcript and statement of facts, citing Matlock v. Matlock, 151 Tex. 208, 249 S.W.2d 587.
Appellant on August 21, 1956 filed an application for rehearing on his Motion No. 11,720.
A brief resume of the sequence of events in the case are that on May 11, 1956, appellant's motion for a new trial was overruled. In due order of filing the transcript and statement of facts would have been filed in this Court on or before July 10, 1956. The transcript and statement of facts were received in the office of this Court on July 13, 1956. The Clerk's file mark in the District Court on the statement of facts is June 18, 1956.
The appellant concedes that he did not request either of appellee's attorneys to approve the statement of facts until July 3, 1956, on which date it was approved by some of the attorneys.
Appellant's letter to the Clerk of this Court advising the Clerk that the transcript and statement of facts would come by railway express is dated July 11, 1956, and the transcript and statement of facts were received by the Clerk on July 13, 1956. The motion for extension of time in which to file the transcript and statement of facts was filed on July 14, 1956.
Appellant would justify delay in filing the transcript and statement of facts because of a delay in getting attorney James Little to confirm attorney Marshall's former approval of the statement of facts. Mr. Little by letter dated July 9, 1956, confirmed Mr. Marshall's approval and the transcript and statement of facts were sent to the Clerk of this Court on the date above set out. It appears that no effort was made to contact Mr. Little by telephone either at his office on July 3, 1956 or in Houston where Mr. Little was in attendance at the State Bar Convention.
(1) We do not believe that appellant has shown good cause why the transcript and statement of facts could not have been filed in this Court within the 60-day period following May 11, 1956, and appellant's application for rehearing on his motion for extension of time for filing the transcript and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison v. Benavides
...United States v. Pacific Finance Corp., Tex.Civ.App., 270 S.W.2d 459; Gee v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 294 S.W.2d 415; Gibson v. McCullough, Tex.Civ.App., 294 S.W.2d 759; Hanna v. Home Ins. Co., 260 S.W.2d 891; Eldridge v. Lake Whitney Enterprises, Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W.2d 466; Donnelly v. Donne......
-
Home Fund, Inc. v. Garland
...of civil appeals very little discretion whether to permit the late filing of a statement of facts or transcript. See also Gibson v. McCullough, 294 S.W.2d 759 (Austin Civ.App., 1956, no writ No evidence of any kind in the form of affidavits or otherwise was offered by appellants to this Cou......
-
Schrader v. Garcia, 901
...Other Courts of Civil Appeals have also denied the granting of such a motion upon similar facts for the lack of good cause. Gibson v. McCullough, 294 S.W.2d 759 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1956, n.w.h.); Ortiz v. Associated Employers Lloyds, 294 S.W.2d 880 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1956, n.w.h.); Fel......
-
Barron v. Barron
...against E. E. Barron and S. R. Barron, as sureties on appellant's cost and supersedeas bond. Matlock v. Matlock, supra; Gibson v. McCullough, Tex.Civ.App., 294 S.W.2d 759; Taylor v. Humble Oil & Refining Company, Tex.Civ.App., 293 S.W.2d Judgment affirmed on certificate. ...