Imperial Irr. Co. v. McKenzie

157 S.W. 751, 1913 Tex. App. LEXIS 1175
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 1, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 157 S.W. 751 (Imperial Irr. Co. v. McKenzie) 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
Imperial Irr. Co. v. McKenzie, 157 S.W. 751, 1913 Tex. App. LEXIS 1175 (Tex. Ct. App. 1913).

Opinions

HIGGINS, J.

This was an action by the appellee against the Imperial Irrigation Company and others for damages arising from trespasses by said company upon lands owned by the appellee. Upon trial before a jury, verdict was returned, and judgment thereon rendered in favor of the appellee against the Imperial Irrigation Company for the sum of $2,000.

[1] Rule 25 for the government of the Courts of Civil Appeals (142 S. W. xii) provides that an assignment of error must refer to that portion of the motion for a new trial in which the error is complained of. None of the assignments of error comply with this provision of the rule, and they will therefore not be considered. Railway Co. v. Ledbetter, 153 S. W. 646; Nunn v. Yeale, 149 S. W. 758; Murphy v. Earl, 150 S. W. 486; Tiefel v. Winn & Maxwell, 154 S. W. 319; Railway Co. v. Gray, 154 S. W. 229.

[2] The assignments as copied in the brief cannot be considered for the further reason that they are not true copies of the originals appearing in the record, and this court has uniformly declined to consider assignments incorrectly copied in the brief. Mt. Franklin, etc., v. May, 150 S. W. 756; Biggs v. Miller, 147 S. W. 632; Horseman v. Coleman County, 57 S. W. 304; Martin v. Bank, 102 S. W. 131; Alexander v. Bowers, 79 S. W. 342; Railway Co. v. Adams, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 245, 118 S. W. 1155; Fessinger v. El Paso Times Co., 154 S. W. 1171, recently decided by this court and not yet officially reported.

No fundamental error appearing of recora, the judgment is therefore affirmed.

McKENZIE, J., was disqualified and did not sit in this case.

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

Related

Wentzell v. Chester
189 S.W. 304 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)
Lakeside Irr. Co. v. Buffington
168 S.W. 21 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Taylor v. Butler
168 S.W. 1004 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Texas Co. v. Veloz
162 S.W. 377 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)
Slaughter v. Kirkpatrick
157 S.W. 754 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)
Cain v. Delaney
157 S.W. 751 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)
Irving v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.
157 S.W. 752 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
157 S.W. 751, 1913 Tex. App. LEXIS 1175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/imperial-irr-co-v-mckenzie-texapp-1913.