Capps v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Texas

Capps v. Johnson

174 S.W. 294, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 181

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 11, 1915

DocketNo. 393.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 174 S.W. 294 (Capps v. Johnson) 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

Capps v. Johnson, 174 S.W. 294, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 181 (Tex. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

HIGGINS, J.

Capps sued Johnson to recover a balance of $450 alleged to be due for drilling a well. Judgment was rendered in Johnson’s favor. This is the second appeal of this case; former opinion appearing in 160 S. W. 1097.

Certain assignments complain of the court’s general charge and the refusal of a special instruction. There is no bill of exception in the record showing compliance .with chapter 59, Act of 1913, p. 113, for which reason the assignments are overruled. Railway Co. v. Wadsack, 166 S. W. 42; Insurance Co. v. Rhoderick, 164 S. W. 1067; Heath v. Huffhines, 168 S. W. 974. Objection, upon trial, was made to certain testimony of Johnson, and its admission is here assigned as error.

The evidence probably falls within and was admissible under the rule laid down in MeKelvey on Evidence (India Paper Edition) p. 220, § 132. In any event, its admission is not regarded as reversible error. Court of Civil Appeals rule 62a (149 S. W. x).

Affirmed.

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

HIGGINS, J.

Capps sued Johnson to recover a balance of $450 alleged to be due for drilling a well. Judgment was rendered in Johnson’s favor. This is the second appeal of this case; former opinion appearing in 160 S. W. 1097.

Certain assignments complain of the court’s general charge and the refusal of a special instruction. There is no bill of exception in the record showing compliance .with chapter 59, Act of 1913, p. 113, for which reason the assignments are overruled. Railway Co. v. Wadsack, 166 S. W. 42; Insurance Co. v. Rhoderick, 164 S. W. 1067; Heath v. Huffhines, 168 S. W. 974. Objection, upon trial, was made to certain testimony of Johnson, and its admission is here assigned as error.

The evidence probably falls within and was admissible under the rule laid down in MeKelvey on Evidence (India Paper Edition) p. 220, § 132. In any event, its admission is not regarded as reversible error. Court of Civil Appeals rule 62a (149 S. W. x).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 S.W. 294, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capps-v-johnson-texapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack