Gammel's Rules of the Courts of Texas Page: 29 of 70
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
TEXAS COURT RULES.
171 S. W. R., 1103. Held, assignment will not be considered, where it
fails to refer to paragraphs in motion for new trial. Fahey vs. Bendetta,
161 S. W. R., 896.
(2) Rule 30. Proposition under Assignment. Held, a proposition
subjoined to an assignment raising and submitting two separate and distinct
propositions of law, is multifarious and will not be considered.
Glover vs. Houston B. Wichita, etc.,
vs. Adams, 146 S. W. R., 271; Jones vs. Nix, 174 S. W. R., 685. Held, a
proposition under an assignment which is not germane to said assignment,
but raises an entirely different question to the one discussed, the assgnment
is properly overruled. M., K. Southwestern P. Cement Co. vs. Kesser, 174 S. W. R., 661; Memphis
Cotton Oil Co. vs. Tolbert, 171 S. W. R., 309; Marten vs. Stires, 171
S. W. R., 836.
(3) Rule 31. Accurate Statement of the Record to Each Proposition.
An assignment followed by five formal propositions presenting different
questions of law, after which appears a statement of the evidence relied
upon to sustain the several propositions, held not in compliance with the
rules. Fort Worth Ry. Co. vs. Abbott, 170 S. W. R., 117. See, Pollard
vs. Allen . Babcock vs. Glover, 174 S. W. R.,
710; National Live Stock Ins. Co. vs. Gomillon, 174 S. W. R., 330.
(4) More Than One Proposition Under One Assignment. See, authorities
given above under rules 29-31. Held, where the brief is in violation
of Rules 24, 25, 31 and 32, and District and County Court Rule 71a, the
assignments, propositions and statements cannot be considered over appellee's
objections. De Lay vs. Wolffarth, 154 S. W. R., 1030.
(5) Propositions and Statements Relating to Fundamental Errors. An
assignment of error complaining of peremptory instructions to find for
the appellee will not be considered, where the statement thereunder is
insufficient under the rules. The court will not search the records for
the facts, even in a case of fundamental error, where the judgment is one
which the trial court is competent to render in the case. Tannehill et
al. vs. Tannehill et al., 171 S. W. R., 1050; Pollard vs. Allen 302; Henderson Gibson
vs. Oberfelder, 148 S. W. R., 829.
(6) Rule 38. Failure to File Assignments and Briefs, Etc. Appellee
may file brief and judgment may be affirmed. See, authorities cited under
District Court Rule 102, and Rules 23-28 and 29-40, above cited. Pagach
vs. Bank et al., 166 S. W. R., 50; State Fair of Texas vs. Cowart, 165
S. W. R., 1197.
(7) Objections to Briefs. Objections to assignments and statements
in appellant's brief, and urged for the first time in motion for rehearing
and not contained in appellee's brief, held waived. Southern Gas
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/m1/29/: accessed July 28, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .