Olguin v. Apodoca

Decided March 14, 1918

Court of Appeals of Texas · decided 1918-03-14

<p>Aepeal and Ebbob <&wkey;301 — Motion bob New Trial — Assignments of Ebbob.</p> <p>Under Rev. St. 1911, art. 1612, as amended by Acts 33d Leg. c. 136 (Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Oiv. St. 1914, art. 1612), providing that where a motion for new trial has been filed the assignments therein shall constitute the assignments of error, assignments of error, which are not copies of any paragraphs of the motion for new trial, but are reconstructed assignments, cannot be considered.</p>

Relies on Edwards v. Youngblood · Watson v. Patrick · Progressive Oil Co. v. Crawford

Affirmed · Decided 1918-03-14

HIGGINS, J.

¶1 The assignments of error presented in appellant’s brief are not copies of any paragraphs of the motion for new trial. They are reconstructed assignments. This is not permissible. The assignments cannot be considered. Article 1612, R. S., as amended by Acts of 1913, p. 276 (Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 1612). It has been repeatedly so held. Edwards v. Youngblood, 160 S. W. 288; Iowa, etc., v. Walcowich, 163 S. W, 1054; Watson v. Patrick, 174 S. W. 632; Oil Co. v. Crawford, 184 S. W. 728; and numerous other cases.

¶2 The entire record has been carefully examined to ascertain whether any fundamental •error appears which would require reversal, whether properly assigned or not. None .such appears. It follows that the judgment must be affirmed.

¶3 Affirmed.

¶4 <§z»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes