William Newton v. James Cox

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE, WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON _______________________________________________________

) WILLIAM P. NEWTON, ) Shelby County Chancery Court ) No. 95025-3 R.D.

VS. Plaintiff/Appellant. ) ) ) C. A. NO. 02A01-9604-CH-00086 FILED ) April 24, 1997 JAMES S. COX, ) ) Cecil Crowson, Jr. Defendant/Appellee. ) Appellate C ourt Clerk ) _____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________________

The appellee has filed a motion for a rehearing in this matter. Contrary to

Appellee’s assertion, this Court did not rule that the contract between Ms. Newton and Mr. Cox

was voided. Perhaps Appellee interpreted the portion on page 2 of our opinion which states that

“the Supreme Court’s decision in Newton v. Cox, 878 S.W.2d 105 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 115

S.Ct. 1889 (1994), confirmed that Newton had the right to void the fee contract entered into by

the parties” as referring to all of the parties to the contract rather than to the parties to the present

suit, Mr. Newton and Mr. Cox.

Appellee correctly asserts that the date from which post-judgment interest begins

was not briefed or argued. However, this Court believes the applicable law is as set forth in our

opinion. Therefore, the petition for rehearing is denied and costs are taxed to Mr. Cox.

Enter this ____ day of ________, 1997.

_____________________________________ FARMER, J.

_____________________________________ CRAWFORD, P.J., W.S.

_____________________________________ LILLARD, J.