Olguin v. Apodoca
This text of 202 S.W. 367 (Olguin v. Apodoca) 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
The assignments of error presented in appellant’s brief are not copies of any paragraphs of the motion for new trial. They are reconstructed assignments. This is not permissible. The assignments cannot be considered. Article 1612, R. S., as amended by Acts of 1913, p. 276 (Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 1612). It has been repeatedly so held. Edwards v. Youngblood, 160 S. W. 288; Iowa, etc., v. Walcowich, 163 S. W, 1054; Watson v. Patrick, 174 S. W. 632; Oil Co. v. Crawford, 184 S. W. 728; and numerous other cases.
The entire record has been carefully examined to ascertain whether any fundamental •error appears which would require reversal, whether properly assigned or not. None .such appears. It follows that the judgment must be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
202 S.W. 367, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olguin-v-apodoca-texapp-1918.