Yandle v. Mundy

22 S.W.2d 983
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided December 21, 1929·No. No. 8307.·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s brief does not ■contain copy of any assignment or assignments of error filed by appellant in the court below, if any were filed there, nor any references to the transcript by which such assignments may be located in the record, as plainly required in rule 32. Appellant’s brief must therefore be disregarded, and, as no fundamental error is apparent in the record, the judgment appealed from must be affirmed. John P. Forrest v. Mrs. N. M. Moore et al., 22 S.W.(2d)-, decided by this'court on December 18, 1929; Ruth v. Cobe (Tex. Civ. App.) 165 S. W. 530; Dees v. Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.) 166 S. W. 56; Bradshaw v. Kearby (Tex. Civ. App.) 168 S. W. 436; Coons v. Lain (Tex. Civ. App.) 168 S. W. 981; Norton v. Lea (Tex. Civ. App.) 170 S. W. 267; Watson v. Patrick (Tex. Civ. App.) 174 S. W. 632; Arnold v. Fuller (Tex. Civ. App.) 279 S. W. 928; Citizens’ State Bank v. McMurrey (Tex. Civ. App.) 16 S.W.(2d) 541.

Affirmed.

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

Yandle v. Mundy, 22 S.W.2d 983 (Tex. Ct. App. 1929).

22 S.W.2d 983 (Yandle v. Mundy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Arnold v. Fuller
279 S.W. 928 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Watson v. Patrick
174 S.W. 632 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Dees v. Thompson
166 S.W. 56 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Coons v. Lain
168 S.W. 981 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Bradshaw v. Kearby Kearby
168 S.W. 436 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Norton v. Lea
170 S.W. 267 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Ruth v. Cobe
165 S.W. 530 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1914)