Baggett v. Riley Huffstetler

Court of Appeals of Texas

Baggett v. Riley Huffstetler

146 S.W. 304, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 198

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 6, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 146 S.W. 304 (Baggett v. Riley Huffstetler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baggett v. Riley Huffstetler, 146 S.W. 304, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 198 (Tex. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PRESLER, J.

Appellant, from the record, appears to have filed no briefs in this cause, and the same is submitted upon the brief of appellee, prepared in accordance with "rule 42 (142 S. W. xiv), governing the submission of cases in this court. We are of the opinion that the judgment in this cause should he affirmed. Appellant appears to have filed but one assignment in the court below, which, ' as contained in the transcript and presented in appellee’s brief, raises a question of jurisdiction by exception to the third count of appellee’s petition. In the trial, however, this count of the petition was wholly ignored. No right of recovery was predicated thereon by the court’s charge, no evidence in support thereof was pointed out, and we therefore conclude that under such circumstances it must be held to have been waived. So determining, we conclude that the judgment should be affirmed, and it is- so ordered.

Affirmed.

HALL, J., not sitting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PRESLER, J.

Appellant, from the record, appears to have filed no briefs in this cause, and the same is submitted upon the brief of appellee, prepared in accordance with "rule 42 (142 S. W. xiv), governing the submission of cases in this court. We are of the opinion that the judgment in this cause should he affirmed. Appellant appears to have filed but one assignment in the court below, which, ' as contained in the transcript and presented in appellee’s brief, raises a question of jurisdiction by exception to the third count of appellee’s petition. In the trial, however, this count of the petition was wholly ignored. No right of recovery was predicated thereon by the court’s charge, no evidence in support thereof was pointed out, and we therefore conclude that under such circumstances it must be held to have been waived. So determining, we conclude that the judgment should be affirmed, and it is- so ordered.

Affirmed.

HALL, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 S.W. 304, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baggett-v-riley-huffstetler-texapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack