Case ID: tex_96/html/0478-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "GAINES, Chief Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. E. Dunn & Company v. Jemima Smith et al.
    No. 3758.
    Decided April 30, 1903.
    1. —Practice in Supreme Court—Assigning Error.
    On application to the Supreme Court for writ of error, a specification that the court erred in overruling defendant’s general demurrer and special exceptions to plaintiff’s petition, is too general. (P. 478.)
    2. —Refusal of Writ of Error.
    The ruling of the Supreme Court in refusing a writ of error in this case is limited to the grounds of error assigned in the application, which are stated. (P. 478.)
    Application for writ of error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fifth District, in an appeal from Dallas County.
    
      Kenneth Foree and K. R. Craig, for petitioner.
   GAINES, Chief Justice.

We are of the opinion that the application for the writ of error in this case should be refused. But in order to prevent misapprehension as to the scope of our rulings, we deem it proper to point out the errors assigned in the petition.

The first specification of error in this court is that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in overruling the first assignment of error in that court, which is, that the trial court erred in overruling defendants’ general demurrer and special exception to plaintiff’s petition. This1 assignment is too general.

The second is to the effect that the trial court erred in finding that the defendant Dunn knew of the substitution of the coffin that was delivered for that purchased by the plaintiffs. We can not say that the finding was without evidence to support it.

The third specification of error is as to the trial court’s finding that the coffin which was actually furnished was too small. We think the assignment shows no error.

The fourth is to the effect that the court erred in permitting the plaintiffs to recover the purchase money paid for the coffin that was delivered. We think °the Court of Civil Appeals also correctly disposed of this assignment and upon satisfactory grounds.

These áre all the specifications of error in this court. The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals discusses other questions raised by the assignments in that court, about which we would have had more difficulty. But these questions not being assigned here are not before us and we are not caled upon to consider them.

Writ refused.