U.S. v. Pacific Finance Corp.
| Decision Date | 29 July 1954 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 12682 and 12683,s. 12682 and 12683 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. PACIFIC FINANCE CORP. et al. UNITED STATES v. PACIFIC FINANCE CORP. et al. . Galveston |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
H. Brian Holland, Asst.Atty.Gen., Andrew D. Sharpe and Edward W. Rothe, Sp. Assts. to the Atty.Gen., Malcolm R. Wilkey, U.S. Atty., for the S.D. of Texas; and Charles L. Short, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Wilkey & Short, Houston), for appellant.
Bryan, Suhr & Bering and James P. Bailey, Houston, for appellee.
Appellee Pacific Finance Corporation has urged in its motion for rehearing that this Court erred when it granted appellant's motions for extensions of time within which to file the records in this Court.
A reconsideration of appellant's original motion for an extension of time within which to file the records in this Court convinces us that good cause did not exist within the 60-day period provided in Rule 386 for failing to file the records, because it is shown that the appellant never ordered the preparation by the District Clerk of the transcripts in these causes until December 17, 1953, 86 days after the final judgments had been entered in the District Court on September 22, 1953, and 14 days after this Court had granted appellant's motion--filed November 10, 1953--for an extension of time within which to file the records in this Court. Matlock v. Matlock, 151 Tex. 308, 249 S.W.2d 587, and Straley v. Commissioners' Court of Lampasas County, Tex.Civ.App., 266 S.W.2d 469.
The only grounds contained in appellant's first motion for an extension of time within which to file the records in this Court were "that the preparation of the statements of facts and the transcripts cannot be completed in time to allow the statements of facts and transcripts to be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Civil Appeals within 60 days from the date of the final judgments." This motion was timely within Rule 386.
The appellee duly objected to appellant's motions for an extension of time, pointing out in its answer that the preparation of the records had not been ordered. After the transcripts had been filed within the extended period, appellee moved to dismiss the appeals and to strike the transcripts on the ground that appellant had failed to show good cause as required by Rule 386. We overruled such motion.
To the extent that appellee's motion for rehearing alleges that we erred in granting an extension of time for filing the records, such motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison v. Benavides
...City of Richardson, Tex.Civ.App., 313 S.W.2d 949 (waited two months before ordering the statement of facts); 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 In......
-
Rehkopf v. Texarkana Newspapers, Inc.
...294 S.W.2d 880, n.w .h.; Jaye v. Texas Consolidated Oils, Tex.Civ.App., 1956, 287 S.W.2d 688, n.w.h.; United States v. Pacific Finance Corporation, Tex.Civ.App., 1954, 270 S.W.2d 459, n.w.h.; Hanna v. Home Insurance Company, Tex.Civ.App., 1953, 260 S.W.2d 891; Matlock v. Matlock, Tex .Sup.C......
-
Hill Chemicals Company v. Miller
...294 N.W.2d 880, n.w.h.; Jaye v. Texas Consolidated Oils, Tex.Civ.App., 1956, 287 S.W.2d 688, n.w.h.; United States v. Pacific Finance Corporation, Tex.Civ.App., 1954, 270 S.W.2d 459, n.w.h.; Hannah v. Home Insurance Company, Tex.Civ.App., 1953, 260 S.W.2d 891; Matlock v. Matlock, 1952, 151 ......
-
Williams v. Williams
...the same in the Court of Civil Appeals. Douglas v. Mercer, 124 S.W.2d 401, (Tex.Civ.App.) 1939, no writ history; United States v. Pacific Finance Corp., 270 S.W.2d 459, (Tex.Civ.App.) 1954, no writ (5) The question of 'good cause' is an ultimate issue of fact for the determination of the Co......