Linda Fischel Prewitt v. Gary and Diane Cargile

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 20, 1993
Docket03-93-00216-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Linda Fischel Prewitt v. Gary and Diane Cargile (Linda Fischel Prewitt v. Gary and Diane Cargile) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Linda Fischel Prewitt v. Gary and Diane Cargile, (Tex. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,


AT AUSTIN




ON MOTION FOR REHEARING


NO. 3-93-216-CV


LINDA FISCHEL PREWITT,


APPELLANT



vs.


GARY AND DIANE CARGILE,


APPELLEES





FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 146TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT


NO. 128,622-B, HONORABLE RICK MORRIS, JUDGE PRESIDING




PER CURIAM



Appellant Linda Fischel Prewitt has filed a motion for rehearing urging that this Court reverse the trial-court judgment and remand the cause because the trial exhibits have been lost or destroyed. See Tex. R. App. P. 50(e); Owen-Illinois, Inc. v. Chatham, No. B14-91-00539-CV (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, n.w.h.); Hidalgo, Chambers & Co. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 790 S.W.2d 700, 702 (Tex. App.--Waco 1990, writ denied). We will overrule the motion for rehearing without a reconsideration of the question whether Rule 50(e) mandates a remand of the cause in this instance.

In her motion, Prewitt asserts that, "[t]o adequately prosecute her appeal," she intended to rely upon the provisions of a contract that was admitted into evidence "and of course, this exhibit has been lost through no fault to the Appellant[,] which in turn, denies her right to appeal." Prewitt seemingly overlooks her burden to prosecute her appeal. An appellate court may dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution if an appellant fails to prosecute the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 54(a), 74(l)(1); Dickson v. Dickson, 541 S.W.2d 895, 896 (Tex. App.--Austin 1976, writ dism'd w.o.j.).

The Clerk of this Court filed the transcript in this cause on May 3, 1993, and received the statement of facts on May 5th. Because the statement of facts was untimely, the Clerk notified Prewitt, by postcard, that she should file a motion for extension of time. Tex. R. App. P. 54(c), 73. Prewitt did not do so. Furthermore, she filed neither a brief nor a motion for extension of time within which to file a brief.

Accordingly, we overrule the motion for rehearing.



Before Justices Powers, Kidd and B. A. Smith

Filed: October 20, 1993

Do Not Publish

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hidalgo, Chambers & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
790 S.W.2d 700 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Dickson v. Dickson
541 S.W.2d 895 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Linda Fischel Prewitt v. Gary and Diane Cargile, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linda-fischel-prewitt-v-gary-and-diane-cargile-texapp-1993.