Jennings-Progress Common School Dist. No. 106 v. Marvin School Dist. No. 14
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the CourtWillson, C. J.
(after stating the case as above).
Appellant’s brief does not contain an “assignment of errors,” nor does it contain a copy of their motion for a new trial filed in the court below. But it does contain nine “propositions” which, it is asserted in the brief, are “based (quoting) on the assignments of error in the amended motion for a new trial.”
In disposing this day of the appeal in Lamar-Delta County Improvement District No. 2 v. Dunn, this court held that, in the absence of an assignment of errors in an appellant’s brief, it was restricted by force of the Act of April 9, 1931 (General Laws…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. NoackCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1931
- Pine Grove Nevada Gold Mining Co. v. FreemanNevada Supreme Court · 1946
- Abernathy County Line Consol. Independent School Dist. v. New Deal Rural High School Dist. No. 3Court of Appeals of Texas · 1943
- National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. CasillasCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1933