Prater v. Prater

Court of Appeals of Texas

Prater v. Prater

29 S.W.2d 795, 1930 Tex. App. LEXIS 623

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 13, 1930

DocketNo. 1987.

StatusPublished

This text of 29 S.W.2d 795 (Prater v. Prater) 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

Prater v. Prater, 29 S.W.2d 795, 1930 Tex. App. LEXIS 623 (Tex. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

WALKER, J.

This was a suit in county court at law by • appellant against appellee on account, for board and lodging. The issues made by the pleadings were sent to the jury on special issues, which were answered in favor of ap-pellee. On the verdict judgment was rendered against appellant and in favor of ap-pellee. Appeal was duly prosecuted to this court.

Though appellant filed his brief herein on the 12th of May, 1930, his brief contains no assignments of error and must, therefore, be stricken. Forrest v. Moore (Tex. Civ. App.) 22 S.W.(2d) 1104, and authorities therein cited; Gladney v. Pate, 29 S.W.(2d) 794, opinion filed to-day by this court. While not required to do so, we have carefully examined the record for fundamental error, as authorized by Haynes v. J. M. Radford Grocery Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 14 S.W.(2d) 811. We have also examined the record for error on the propositions advanced by appellant and find that the case was properly tried. It is therefore our order that the judgment of the lower court be in all things affirmed.

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

WALKER, J.

This was a suit in county court at law by • appellant against appellee on account, for board and lodging. The issues made by the pleadings were sent to the jury on special issues, which were answered in favor of ap-pellee. On the verdict judgment was rendered against appellant and in favor of ap-pellee. Appeal was duly prosecuted to this court.

Though appellant filed his brief herein on the 12th of May, 1930, his brief contains no assignments of error and must, therefore, be stricken. Forrest v. Moore (Tex. Civ. App.) 22 S.W.(2d) 1104, and authorities therein cited; Gladney v. Pate, 29 S.W.(2d) 794, opinion filed to-day by this court. While not required to do so, we have carefully examined the record for fundamental error, as authorized by Haynes v. J. M. Radford Grocery Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 14 S.W.(2d) 811. We have also examined the record for error on the propositions advanced by appellant and find that the case was properly tried. It is therefore our order that the judgment of the lower court be in all things affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 S.W.2d 795, 1930 Tex. App. LEXIS 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prater-v-prater-texapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack