Legal Opinion

Equipment Co. v. Luse

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided April 4, 1923No. 6925PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.

The appeal is based upon eleven assignments of error, which are set out at the “back” of the brief, as provided in rule 32' (142 S. W. xiii) ; hut none of these assignments “refer to that portion of the motion for new trial in which the error is complained of,” as required by rule 25 (142 S.'W. xii). This omission has been repeatedly held to be fatal, relieving an appellate court of any obligation to consider such assignments; and while we have in no ease upon our own motion disregarded assignments on this account, we do not feel at liberty to consider them in this case over the objections of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. GoldenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1918
  2. Fahey v. BenedettiCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913
  3. Sullivan v. MastersonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1918

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Clonts v. JohnsonTexas Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Natkin Engineering Co. v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1931
  3. Blakeney v. Johnson CountyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1923
  4. Wisconsin-Texas Oil Co v. ClutterCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
  5. Farmers' State Bank of BurkburNett v. McReynoldsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1927

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

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

Powered by the Exa API