Stevens v. Marshall

Court of Appeals of Texas

Stevens v. Marshall

178 S.W. 972, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 879

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 2, 1915

DocketNo. 5507.

StatusPublished

This text of 178 S.W. 972 (Stevens v. Marshall) 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

Stevens v. Marshall, 178 S.W. 972, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 879 (Tex. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

KEY, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in an election contest. Appellant filed no assignments of error, and the alleged assignments in his brief do not refer to or correspond with any paragraph of his motion for a new trial, and, for that reason, he is not entitled to have this court decide the questions attempted to be presented in his brief. El Paso Electric Co. v. Lee, 157 S. W. 748, and cases there cited; Watson v. Patrick, 174 S. W. 632, and cases there cited. In fact, in his motion for a new trial he merely alleged: First, that the judgment “is contrary to the evidence in said cause”; second, “that the same is contrary to the law in said case.” That motion itself was too general to constitute an assignment of error. Harrington v. Chambers, 143 S. W. 662; Salliway v. Grand Lodge, 164 S. W. 1041; Ross v. Blount, 166 S. W. 913.

Appellees object to a consideration of appellant’s brief, and the objections must be sustained. However, the case is very plain and simple, and we feel constrained to say that, in our opinion, the proper judgment was rendered, and no brief could have been filed in this court which would have entitled appellant to have the case reversed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

KEY, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in an election contest. Appellant filed no assignments of error, and the alleged assignments in his brief do not refer to or correspond with any paragraph of his motion for a new trial, and, for that reason, he is not entitled to have this court decide the questions attempted to be presented in his brief. El Paso Electric Co. v. Lee, 157 S. W. 748, and cases there cited; Watson v. Patrick, 174 S. W. 632, and cases there cited. In fact, in his motion for a new trial he merely alleged: First, that the judgment “is contrary to the evidence in said cause”; second, “that the same is contrary to the law in said case.” That motion itself was too general to constitute an assignment of error. Harrington v. Chambers, 143 S. W. 662; Salliway v. Grand Lodge, 164 S. W. 1041; Ross v. Blount, 166 S. W. 913.

Appellees object to a consideration of appellant’s brief, and the objections must be sustained. However, the case is very plain and simple, and we feel constrained to say that, in our opinion, the proper judgment was rendered, and no brief could have been filed in this court which would have entitled appellant to have the case reversed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 S.W. 972, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-marshall-texapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack