# Mobley v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · December 1, 1914 · 44 Okla. 788

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9824693

## Case

- **Full name:** MOBLEY, Adm’x., v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** December 1, 1914
- **Citations:** 44 Okla. 788; 145 P. 321; 1915 OK 600; 1915 Okla. LEXIS 750
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Gaebraith, Chas, Wilson
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9824693

## Opinion text

*793 On Rehearing.
The grounds urged for rehearing are: (1) That the journal entry of judgment was actually made and filed in the trial court and was omitted therefrom through inadvertence or mistake — attaching a copy thereof certified by the clerk of the trial court; (2) that the order of January 19, 1912, extending the time for making and serving the case-made, was actually filed in the trial court — attaching a copy thereof duly certified by the clerk; (3) that “an application” was prepared and mailed to the clerk of this court prior to the decision dismissing the appeal, but was not filed because plaintiff in error’s cost deposit was exhausted.
It will be observed that no effort has been made in the preparation of this petition to comply with the requirements of rule 9 (38 Oída, vi, 137 Pac. ix ) of this court governing petitions ■ for rehearing, and that none of the reasons set out in the petition are recognized grounds for rehearing.
It appears from the record in this case that the motion to dismiss the appeal was regularly served, prior to the time the cause was set down for argument and submission, and an argument in support of the motion was made in the defendant in error’s brief; that on the day the cause was set down for argument at the October, 1914, term, counsel for the defendant in error appeared and made an oral argument in support of the motion to dismiss. Counsel for the plaintiff in error did not appear and made no written response to the motion. The cause was regularly submitted, and' on December 1, 1914, an opinion was handed down sustaining the motion and dismissing the cause. On December 7, 1914, counsel for the plaintiff in error filed a petition for rehearing on the grounds above set out. While the reasons therein set out are not recognized grounds for a rehearing, if they had been made in response to the motion to dismiss and in the proper time they would have received the careful consideration of the court; but, presented at this time *794 and in this manner, they are not entitled to consideration. Counsel do not attempt to offer any excuse for their failure to make response to the motion to dismiss, nor for their failure to appear in court on the day the cause was set down for argument, nor to show why they permitted the cost deposit with the clerk of this court to become exhausted so that no papers in the cause could be properly filed. Such attitude of counsel does not appeal to the indulgence of the court. If counsel do not take enough interest in their cases to make a reasonable effort to comply with the rules of court, which are formulated for the purpose of facilitating the dispatch of business before it, they come in ill form asking something by grace to which they are not entitled as of right.
The petition for'rehearing is denied, and the original opinion filed herein adhered to in all respects.
By the Court: It is so ordered.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9824693. Public record. Not legal advice.