Legal Opinion

Chancelor v. Slaughter

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided March 6, 1919No. 2090PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWillson, C. J.

(after stating the facts as above). Neither one of the several assignments of error relied upon by appellants is copied in their brief. As rule 29' (142 *240S. W. xii) for the government of this court expressly provides that an assignment not so copied “shall be regarded as abandoned,” the objection made by appellee to a consideration of the contention made in said brief must be sustained. It has been repeatedly held that the requirement in the rule cannot be ignored. Martin v. Bank, 102 S. W. 131; Gambould v. Railway Co., 40 S. W. 834; Poland v. Porter, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 334, 98 S. W. 214; Kirby…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Overton v. Colored Knights of PythiasCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1914
  2. Ratliff v. TinerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1907
  3. Poland v. PorterCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1906
  4. Koch v. Missouri Valley Bridge & Iron Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1907
  5. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. UeckerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1907

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Texas Blue Bonnet Oil Co. v. W. C. Jones Drilling Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1921
  2. McFarland v. Burkburnett-Harris Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1921

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API