Lebowitz v. Sueravitz

Court of Appeals of Texas

Lebowitz v. Sueravitz

33 S.W.2d 476

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 5, 1930

DocketNo. 3915.

StatusPublished

This text of 33 S.W.2d 476 (Lebowitz v. Sueravitz) 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

Lebowitz v. Sueravitz, 33 S.W.2d 476 (Tex. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

*477 WILLSON, C. J.

(after stating tlie ease as above).

By tile terms of article 1844, Rey. St. 1925, plaintiff in error was required, before be took tbe transcript from tbe office of tbe clerk of tbe court below, to file witb said clerk “assignments of error specifying tbe grounds” on which be relied for a reversal*of tbe judgment. By tbe terms of Rule 82 for tbe government of Courts of Civil Appeals, be was required to copy such assignments in tbe brief be filed here. This requirement be failed to comply witb. It has been repeatedly held, when such assignments are not copied into tbe appellant’s or plaintiff in error’s brief, that an appellate court should consider only “errors apparent on tbe face of the record.” Clonts v. Johnson, 116 Tex. 489, 294 S. W. 844, 846; Gladney v. Pate (Tex. Civ. App.) 29 S.W.(2d) 794; Dawes v. Irr. Dist. (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S.W.(2d) 907; Greenwall v. Ligon (Tex. Com. App.) 14 S.W.(2d) 829; Devlin v. Heid Bros. (Tex. Civ. App.) 21 S.W.(2d) 746. Plaintiff in error has not pointed out, and we have not found, such an error in tbe record, and therefore cannot do otherwise than affirm the judgment.

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

*477 WILLSON, C. J.

(after stating tlie ease as above).

By tile terms of article 1844, Rey. St. 1925, plaintiff in error was required, before be took tbe transcript from tbe office of tbe clerk of tbe court below, to file witb said clerk “assignments of error specifying tbe grounds” on which be relied for a reversal*of tbe judgment. By tbe terms of Rule 82 for tbe government of Courts of Civil Appeals, be was required to copy such assignments in tbe brief be filed here. This requirement be failed to comply witb. It has been repeatedly held, when such assignments are not copied into tbe appellant’s or plaintiff in error’s brief, that an appellate court should consider only “errors apparent on tbe face of the record.” Clonts v. Johnson, 116 Tex. 489, 294 S. W. 844, 846; Gladney v. Pate (Tex. Civ. App.) 29 S.W.(2d) 794; Dawes v. Irr. Dist. (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S.W.(2d) 907; Greenwall v. Ligon (Tex. Com. App.) 14 S.W.(2d) 829; Devlin v. Heid Bros. (Tex. Civ. App.) 21 S.W.(2d) 746. Plaintiff in error has not pointed out, and we have not found, such an error in tbe record, and therefore cannot do otherwise than affirm the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 S.W.2d 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lebowitz-v-sueravitz-texapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack