Gibson v. Schoolcraft
This text of 1 White & W. 24 (Gibson v. Schoolcraft) 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.
Opinion
Opinion by
§ 49. Bills of exceptions; statement of facts; assignment of errors. In this case there is no assignment of errors, no bills of exceptions, and the paper purporting [25]*25to be a statement of facts is not approved or certified by the judge, and therefore cannot be treated as a statement of facts. [Pas. Dig. arts. 1391 and 1490; Rules of Supreme Ct. No. 22; 32 Tex. 18; 25 Tex. 350; Murchison v. Holley, 40 Tex. 439.] In the absence of an assignment of errors, only such errors can be considered as go to the foundation of the action. [44 Tex. 649.]
§ 50. Assignment of errors, necessity for. The statute upon this subject is mandatory and emphatic, and was evidently intended as well to enable this court to make a proper disposition of the cases brought before it as for the protection of appellees and defendants in error. We do not, therefore, regard the mere submission of a case by the parties on briefs as obviating an observance of this plain requirement of law. [Davenport v. Hervey, 30 Tex. 309.]
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 White & W. 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-schoolcraft-texapp-1877.