Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the Tyler term, 1877, and embracing the cases decided during the first part of the Galveston term, 1878. Volume 48. Page: 603

                                
1878.]        TEXAS LAND Co. v. WILLIAMS.            603
Opinion of the court.
4. SAME-ADVANCING CASES.-- Tis court will require a substantial
compliance with rules 29, 30, 31, 36, and 40, before granting a motion
to set aside a submission and to advance a case.
5. ADVANCING OASES ALREADY SUBMITTED.-Rules 56, 57, 58, and
59, providing for setting aside cases already submitted, and advancing
them on the docket, discussed, illustrated, and explained.
6. BRIEFS.-Tlie main object of the brief, as provided for under the new
rules, is to get something definite-capable of being understood alike
by the court and by both parties-to found an argument upon.
APPEAL from Leon county. Tried below before the Hon.
John B. Rector.
This was a motion to set aside a submission and advance
the cause under the new rules. The facts are fully set out
in the opinion.
H. D. Prendergast and W. M. Johnson, for motion.
W. D. Wood and A. H. Weir, for appellee.
ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE.-This is a motion by appellant
to set aside the submission formerly made in this cause in
this court, and advance it to a hearing, under rule 58 of the
Supreme Court, lately adopted. Service upon the attorney
of the appellee having been properly made and returned into
court, the motioli has been submitted on the third day of the
assignment, according to rule 13, Supreme Court, as required
by rule 58, to enable the court to determine whether or not
the brief of the appellant has been made in conformity with
the rules of the Supreme Court, as required in the said rules
relating to briefs, numbers 29 to 45.
It has been thought proper, in deciding this motion, to give
some explanation of these rules and regulations.
The members of the Convention, in giving the Supreme
Court "the power to make rules and regulations," for the
express purpose of regulating the proceedings and expediting
the business in the courts, must have designed more than the
making of a few short rules of court, such as have formerly
been made and practiced under. In the performance of this