Grant v. Grant

Court of Appeals of Texas

Grant v. Grant

190 S.W. 229, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 1154

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 16, 1916

DocketNo. 1669.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 190 S.W. 229 (Grant v. Grant) 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

Grant v. Grant, 190 S.W. 229, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 1154 (Tex. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLSON, C. J.

(after stating the facts as above). [1-3] Each of the appellants filed a motion for a new trial in the court below. The grounds of the motions were the same, to wit, that the judgment was contrary (1) to the law, (2) to the evidence, and (3) to the findings of the jury, except that in his motion appellant Barnwell set up certain “newly discovered” (as he alleged) evidence as an additional ground for granting it. By force of the statute (Acts 1913, art. 1612, Vernon’s Statutes), and rule 24 for the government of this court (142 S. W. xii), the grounds set up in the motions constituted the assignments of error on appeal. Appellants have' ignored this in presenting the cause, and in their briefs, instead of confining their complaint against the judgment to the grounds specified in the motions, seek a reversal of it on other grounds. Indeed, the grounds specified in the motions are not presented on the appeal otherwise than in the tenth assignment in the brief, as follows:

“The court erred in overruling appellant J. S. Barnwell’s motion for a new trial, because said judgment as entered is contrary to the law and against the evidence and the findings of the jury and on account of newly discovered evidence.”

This assignment is not followed by propositions as contemplated by rule 30 (142 S. W. xiii), and, plainly, is multifarious. Hemphill v. National Iron & Steel Co., 142 S. W. 845; Chambers v. Wyatt, 151 S. W. 867; Ry. Co. v. McDuffey, 50 Tex. Civ. App. 202, 109 S. W. 1108; Deutschmann v. Ryan, 148 S. W. 1141; Williamson v. Powell, 140 S. W. 361; Browder v. School District, 172 S. W. 152.

As none of the assignments in the briefs are entitled to be considered, it must be said that appellants have failed to show error in the judgment. Therefore it is affirmed.

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

WILLSON, C. J.

(after stating the facts as above). [1-3] Each of the appellants filed a motion for a new trial in the court below. The grounds of the motions were the same, to wit, that the judgment was contrary (1) to the law, (2) to the evidence, and (3) to the findings of the jury, except that in his motion appellant Barnwell set up certain “newly discovered” (as he alleged) evidence as an additional ground for granting it. By force of the statute (Acts 1913, art. 1612, Vernon’s Statutes), and rule 24 for the government of this court (142 S. W. xii), the grounds set up in the motions constituted the assignments of error on appeal. Appellants have' ignored this in presenting the cause, and in their briefs, instead of confining their complaint against the judgment to the grounds specified in the motions, seek a reversal of it on other grounds. Indeed, the grounds specified in the motions are not presented on the appeal otherwise than in the tenth assignment in the brief, as follows:

“The court erred in overruling appellant J. S. Barnwell’s motion for a new trial, because said judgment as entered is contrary to the law and against the evidence and the findings of the jury and on account of newly discovered evidence.”

This assignment is not followed by propositions as contemplated by rule 30 (142 S. W. xiii), and, plainly, is multifarious. Hemphill v. National Iron & Steel Co., 142 S. W. 845; Chambers v. Wyatt, 151 S. W. 867; Ry. Co. v. McDuffey, 50 Tex. Civ. App. 202, 109 S. W. 1108; Deutschmann v. Ryan, 148 S. W. 1141; Williamson v. Powell, 140 S. W. 361; Browder v. School District, 172 S. W. 152.

As none of the assignments in the briefs are entitled to be considered, it must be said that appellants have failed to show error in the judgment. Therefore it is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.W. 229, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 1154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-grant-texapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack