Provident National Bank v. Webb
Court of Appeals of Texas
Error from the District Court of McLennan County. Tried below before Hon. W. C. Wear.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
JERKIES, Associate Justice.
Upon a former day of this term we reversed and remanded this case because the judgment did not settle the matter in controversy, to wit: the boundary line between the Rainey and the Mizell surveys. Defendant in error, in his motion for rehearing, insists that we should not have done so, because neither plaintiff’s motion for a new trial nor his assignments of error point out this objection to the judgment. In support of his motion defendant submits the legal propositions that errors not assigned will not be noticed by the appellate…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- James v. JamesTexas Supreme Court · 1891
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. MangumTexas Supreme Court · 1887
- Cammack v. RogersTexas Supreme Court · 1903
- International & Great Northern Railway Co. v. HinzieTexas Supreme Court · 1891
- Leavitt v. Brazelton JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1902
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Southern Pine Lumber Co. v. WhitemanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1937
- W. T. Carter & Brother v. RuthCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1955
- Wilhelm v. BaumannCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1910
- Wilhelm v. BaumanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1910
- Permian Oil Co. v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.