Christopher v. Fuerst

OPINION

SEARS, Justice.

The central issue in this appeal is whether an unverified, prematurely filed motion to reinstate is equivalent to a motion for new trial for purposes of extending the time for perfecting an appeal. We hold it is not.

Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, filed plaintiff’s Original Petition in September, 1979. Although appellant set the case on the trial docket several times in 1981, appellant’s attorney testified at a hearing on his Motion to Reinstate that he knew the case could not possibly be reached for trial until 1984. From 1979 to 1984, the only activity in this…