8 Tex. 204
Decided July 1, 1852
Texas Supreme Court · decided 1852-07-01
<p>Where there was no assignment of errors, and the counsel for the appellee argued some of the questions raised on exceptions taken in the court below, bub presented also the ground that errors in the judgment, for want of an assigment, were waived, it was considered as a motion to dismiss for want of an assignment of errors, and the appeal was dismissed accordingly.</p>
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1890
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1852-07-01
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1In this case there was no assignment of error, as required by law. The appellee argues some of the questions raised on the exceptions taken in the court below, but presents also the ground that errors in the judgment, for want of assignment, have been waived. This may be considered'‘as a motion on his part to dismiss for the want, of an assignment of errors, and this is accordingly granted.
¶2Appeal dismissed.