William Newton v. James Cox ( 1997 )

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.