Pollard v. Allen Sims

Court of Appeals of Texas

Pollard v. Allen Sims

171 S.W. 302, 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 900

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 25, 1914

DocketNo. 361.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 171 S.W. 302 (Pollard v. Allen Sims) 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

Pollard v. Allen Sims, 171 S.W. 302, 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 900 (Tex. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

WALTHALL, J.

This case was tried before the court. In this case findings of fact and conclusions of law were not filed by the trial court. Plaintiff in error failed to file a motion for a new trial in the court below. In this condition of the record, there are therefore no valid assignments of error which we can consider. Acts 1913, e. 136, p. 276 (Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 1612); American, etc., v. Mercedes, 155 S. W. 286; Cooney v. Dandridge, 158 S. W. 177, 178; Moore v. Rabb, 159 S. W. 85; Dees v. Thompson, 166 S. W. 56.

Furthermore, the brief filed by plaintiff in error in this case fails to comply with rule 31 (142 S. W. xiii), which requires that to each proposition there shall be subjoined a brief statement in substance of such proceedings or part thereof, contained in the record, as will be necessary and sufficient to understand and support the proposition with reference to the pages of the record. Colorado Canal Co. v. McFarland & Southwell, 50 Tex. Civ. App. 92, 109 S. W. 435; Walker v. International & G. N. R. Co., 54 Tex. Civ. App. 406, 117 S. W. 1020; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Lane, 118 S. W. 847; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Wafer, 130 S. W. 712; Broussard v. South Texas Rice Co., 120 S. W. 587; Kirby Lumber Co. v. Chambers, 41

*303 Tex. Civ. App. 632, 95 S. W. 607; Johnson v. Lyford, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 85, 29 S. W. 57; Galveston H. & N. Ry. Co. v. Olds, 112 S. W. 787; Johnson v. Hulett, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 11, 120 S. W. 257.

Since there áré no valid assignments of error in the record, and since the purported assignments which were filed by plaintiff in error in the "court below are not properly briefed, we are therefore confined in the consideration of this case to those errors which are fundamental in their nature, or else such errors apparent upon the face of the record as we .are required to notice without assignments and briefs.

We have carefully examined the record, and find no errors of this nature, and the judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

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

WALTHALL, J.

This case was tried before the court. In this case findings of fact and conclusions of law were not filed by the trial court. Plaintiff in error failed to file a motion for a new trial in the court below. In this condition of the record, there are therefore no valid assignments of error which we can consider. Acts 1913, e. 136, p. 276 (Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 1612); American, etc., v. Mercedes, 155 S. W. 286; Cooney v. Dandridge, 158 S. W. 177, 178; Moore v. Rabb, 159 S. W. 85; Dees v. Thompson, 166 S. W. 56.

Furthermore, the brief filed by plaintiff in error in this case fails to comply with rule 31 (142 S. W. xiii), which requires that to each proposition there shall be subjoined a brief statement in substance of such proceedings or part thereof, contained in the record, as will be necessary and sufficient to understand and support the proposition with reference to the pages of the record. Colorado Canal Co. v. McFarland & Southwell, 50 Tex. Civ. App. 92, 109 S. W. 435; Walker v. International & G. N. R. Co., 54 Tex. Civ. App. 406, 117 S. W. 1020; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Lane, 118 S. W. 847; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Wafer, 130 S. W. 712; Broussard v. South Texas Rice Co., 120 S. W. 587; Kirby Lumber Co. v. Chambers, 41

*303 Tex. Civ. App. 632, 95 S. W. 607; Johnson v. Lyford, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 85, 29 S. W. 57; Galveston H. & N. Ry. Co. v. Olds, 112 S. W. 787; Johnson v. Hulett, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 11, 120 S. W. 257.

Since there áré no valid assignments of error in the record, and since the purported assignments which were filed by plaintiff in error in the "court below are not properly briefed, we are therefore confined in the consideration of this case to those errors which are fundamental in their nature, or else such errors apparent upon the face of the record as we .are required to notice without assignments and briefs.

We have carefully examined the record, and find no errors of this nature, and the judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 S.W. 302, 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pollard-v-allen-sims-texapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack