Roots v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen

Court of Appeals of Texas

Roots v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen

92 S.W.2d 570, 1936 Tex. App. LEXIS 235

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 13, 1936

DocketNo. 13330.

StatusPublished

This text of 92 S.W.2d 570 (Roots v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen) 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

Roots v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 92 S.W.2d 570, 1936 Tex. App. LEXIS 235 (Tex. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, Justice.

For convenience, we will refer to the parties in this case as appellant and appellee.

Logan C. Roots, appellant, brought suit in the district court of Grayson county against the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, appellee, on a beneficiary certificate, issued to the appellant, seeking to recover total disability because of the loss of one of his eyes.

Appellee filed a plea in abatement, which was heard by the trial court, was sustained, and appellant’s cause of action dismissed. The appeal'is taken from this action.

We find two assignments of error in appellant’s brief, as follows:

“1. The amendment to section 68 of the Constitution, effective September 1, 1933, is wholly ineffective in this case. It cannot alter the contract evidenced by the beneficiary certificate nor the liability of the defendant.”

“2. Defendant, denying any and all liability to the plaintiff, waived proofs of disability, nor was it necessary, under the' facts, for defendant to follow the remedy and procedure outlined in the Section and the Constitution.”

Appellee presents to us its objections to the consideration of these assignments of error, because they present mere abstract propositions and do not complain of any action of the trial court, and are too general and. indefinite to require consideration, and because both assignments of error are multifarious. We are convinced that the objections are well taken. Lamar-Delta County Levee Improvement District No. 2 v. Dunn (Tex.Com.App.) 61 S.W.(2d) 816; Hibbitts v. Farrier (Tex.Civ.App.) 80 S.W.(2d) 1083; Lord v. Hatcher (Tex.Civ.App.) 83 S.W.(2d) 758; 3 Tex.Jur. p. 799, par. 567.

We do not feel that the two propositions presented in appellant’s brief are sufficient to present ,the error, or errors, supposed to have been committed by the trial court, and hold that they do not assist the assignments of error.

This brings us to the question of fundamental error. We do not find where any fundamental error has been committed by the trial court. , Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Stockton (Tex.Civ.App.) 271 S.W. 180, by Mr. Justice Dunklin.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

BROWN, Justice.

For convenience, we will refer to the parties in this case as appellant and appellee.

Logan C. Roots, appellant, brought suit in the district court of Grayson county against the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, appellee, on a beneficiary certificate, issued to the appellant, seeking to recover total disability because of the loss of one of his eyes.

Appellee filed a plea in abatement, which was heard by the trial court, was sustained, and appellant’s cause of action dismissed. The appeal'is taken from this action.

We find two assignments of error in appellant’s brief, as follows:

“1. The amendment to section 68 of the Constitution, effective September 1, 1933, is wholly ineffective in this case. It cannot alter the contract evidenced by the beneficiary certificate nor the liability of the defendant.”

“2. Defendant, denying any and all liability to the plaintiff, waived proofs of disability, nor was it necessary, under the' facts, for defendant to follow the remedy and procedure outlined in the Section and the Constitution.”

Appellee presents to us its objections to the consideration of these assignments of error, because they present mere abstract propositions and do not complain of any action of the trial court, and are too general and. indefinite to require consideration, and because both assignments of error are multifarious. We are convinced that the objections are well taken. Lamar-Delta County Levee Improvement District No. 2 v. Dunn (Tex.Com.App.) 61 S.W.(2d) 816; Hibbitts v. Farrier (Tex.Civ.App.) 80 S.W.(2d) 1083; Lord v. Hatcher (Tex.Civ.App.) 83 S.W.(2d) 758; 3 Tex.Jur. p. 799, par. 567.

We do not feel that the two propositions presented in appellant’s brief are sufficient to present ,the error, or errors, supposed to have been committed by the trial court, and hold that they do not assist the assignments of error.

This brings us to the question of fundamental error. We do not find where any fundamental error has been committed by the trial court. , Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Stockton (Tex.Civ.App.) 271 S.W. 180, by Mr. Justice Dunklin.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.W.2d 570, 1936 Tex. App. LEXIS 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roots-v-brotherhood-of-railroad-trainmen-texapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack