Gammel's Rules of the Courts of Texas Page: 28 of 70
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
TEXAS COURT RULES.
In case the brief for either party is, in the opinion of the Court
of Civil Appeals, defective or insufficient, the court may at its discretion
set aside the submission of the causes with such orders for
postponement and filing of amended briefs as it may deem proper.
This June 22, 1921.
(Signed) NELSON PHILLIPS,
(Signed) THOS. B. GREENWOOD,
(Signed) WILLIAM PIERSON,
A true copy:
Attest: F. T. CONNERLY,
Effective September 1, 1921, in lieu of the rules existing prior thereto
upon the subjects, Nos. 29 to 45 inclusive. Under the new rules some
changes have been made governing the preparation of briefs.
Under Article 1614, R. S. 1911, as amended by Acts 37th Leg., Reg. Ses.
1921 p. 210, typewritten briefs of over fifteen pages may be filed. Under
the new rules the assignments of error relied on shall be set out at the
back of the brief; but if desired they may immediately follow the statement
of the case, and if the brief contains more than twenty pages it
shall contain on its front fly-leaves a subject index with page references, etc.
A failure to file assignments of error and briefs in the trial court and
in the Court of Civil Appeals within the time and manner prescribed by
law and by the rules, shall be grounds for dismissing the appeal or writ
of error by the court of its own motion or on the motion of appellee or
defendant in error (Rule 38).
(1) Rules 29-32-Assignments with Appropriate Propositions and
Statements. Held, failure to file brief in the appellate court as Provided
by Rule 38, and Article 1614, ground for dismissal. Banks vs. McMahan,
162 S. W. R., 366. Assignments not correctly copied in the brief will
not be considered on appeal. Watson vs. Patrick, 174 S. W. R., 632;
Norton et al. vs. Lee et al., 170 S. V. R., 267; Bradshaw vs. Kearby Dees vs. Thompson, 166 S. W. R., 56; Ruth vs.
Cole, 165 S. W. R., 530. Where the assignments in the brief do not
purport to be the same as those set up in the motion for a new trial, but
in most instances are condensed assignments, should be considered waived
by appellant under rules 23 and 29, and should be disregarded. Coons
vs. Lain, 168 S. W. R., 981; Ruth vs. Cobe, 165 S. W. R., 530. Assignment
of error not presented in its consecutive order in the brief, as
required by Rule 32, same may be disregarded. Taylor vs. Butler, 168
S. W. R., 1004. Joining and briefing together several assignments, each
presenting different and distinct points of law, is not allowable under the
rules. National Live Stock Ins. Co. vs. Gomillon, 174 S. W. R., 330. Thirteen
assignments presented in one group, all to the action of the court
in overruling that many special exceptions, and in the statement thereunder
reference is made to the record to find out what the exceptions were,
held improperly briefed. Pecos
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Moffett, James William. Gammel's Rules of the Courts of Texas, book, 1922; Austin, Texas. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth5836/m1/28/: accessed November 22, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .