Thomas v. Driver

When the original opinion was filed in this case, I had some doubt as to the correctness of the holding that the attorney, Gordon Gibson, was acting as the attorney for plaintiff in error and not as amicus curiæ, and that the action of the attorney constituted a waiver of service of the controverting answer to the plea of privilege. I have examined the record more fully and am convinced that we were in error in so holding. The only appearance in the record by Gordon Gibson is a suggestion, as amicus curiæ, that there had been no service of the controverting affidavit. The trial court…