Koch v. Missouri Valley Bridge & Iron Co.

101 S.W. 872, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 84, 1907 Tex. App. LEXIS 23
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 10, 1907·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

KEY, Associate Justice.

The transcript contains only two assignments of error, neither of which are copied in appellant’s brief, as required by Rule 29. On account of this violation of that rule appellee in its brief objects to appellant’s brief and to- consideration by this court of the grounds for reversal therein urged. Though appellee’s brief has been on file over three months, appellant has made no effort to remedy the defect in his brief. Therefore, we sustain appellee’s objection. (Chappell v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 75 Texas, 82; Harris v. Crabtree, 4 Texas Civ. App., 321; Horseman v. Coleman County, 57 S. W. Rep., 304; Bowman v. Hoffman, 74 S. W. Rep., 340.)

We have discovered no fundamental error and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Koch v. Missouri Valley Bridge & Iron Co., 101 S.W. 872, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 84, 1907 Tex. App. LEXIS 23 (Tex. Ct. App. 1907).

101 S.W. 872 (Koch v. Missouri Valley Bridge & Iron Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stafford Const. Co., Inc. v. Martin
531 S.W.2d 667 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1975)
Flynn v. Pan American Hotel Co.
183 S.W.2d 446 (Texas Supreme Court, 1944)
Fort Worth Lloyds v. Johnson
129 S.W.2d 1157 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1939)
State v. City of Tulsa
1931 OK 754 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1931)
Temple Lumber Co. v. McDaniel
24 S.W.2d 518 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Churchwell v. Pure Oil Pipe Line Co.
289 S.W. 196 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Chancelor v. Slaughter
210 S.W. 239 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1919)
Beaumont, S. L. & W. Ry. Co. v. Daniel
186 S.W. 383 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)