Case ID: sw_136/html/0255-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DIBRELD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TARRANT COUNTY v. ROGERS.
    (Supreme Court of Texas.
    April 19, 1911.)
    1. Appeal and Error (§ 719) — Questions Reviewable — Assignments op Error.
    All questions not involving fundamental error of law apparent on the record must be presented by assignments or cross-assignments of error, and unless they are so presented the Supreme Court will not review them.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2968-2982; Dec. Dig. J 719 ]
    
      2. Appeal ano Error (§ 747) — Questions Reviewable — Assignments oe Error — Cross-Assignments oe Error.
    Where defendant in error made no complaint by cross-assignment as to the amount of the judgment rendered against him, the Supreme Court on writ of error cannot consider the question.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3053-3057; Dec. Dig. § 747.]
    On motion for rehearing and to reform judgment.
    Overruled.
    For former opinion, see 135 S. W. 110.
    Capps, Canty, Hanger & Short, McLean & Scott, and Theodore Mack, for defendants in error.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   DIBRELD, J.

Heretofore in this cause a writ of error was granted to the Court of Civil Appeals of the Third District at the instance of plaintiff in error, Tarrant county, and the judgment of said court (125 S. W. 592) was reformed and rendered by this court (135 S. W. 110) in favor of Tarrant county against the defendant in error, appellee in the Court of Civil Appeals, R. L. Rogers, and K. M. Van Zant and K. Harding, sureties on his official bond, for the sum of $2;330.51, at 6 per cent, interest thereon from December 6, 1906. The amount of the judgment rendered by the Court of Civil Appeals represented the sum of $472.71 found by said court to be the correct amount awarded the plaintiff in error in the court below and the difference between the sum of $5,704.20 found by the jury to have been paid by the defendant in error to the plaintiff in error in excess of what he should have paid upon excess of fees collected, and the sum of $7,562 found by the Court of Civil Appeals to have been paid by plaintiff to defendant in error for indexing records, in excess of what should have been paid.

As determined by this court, speaking through Justice Williams, the only question presented by the writ of error for decision was whether the defendant in error, who was defendant in the trial court, was entitled to offset the sum of $5,704.20 paid to the county of Tarrant in excess of what he claimed he should have paid for the purpose and under the circumstances detailed in the opinion of Justice Williams.

The amount of the judgment rendered by this court was arrived at by adding to the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals for $2,330.51 the sum of $5,704.20 adjudged by this court to have been wrongfully allowed defendant in error by both the trial court and Court of Civil Appeals.

The defendant in error has filed in this court motions for rehearing and to reform the judgment as to the amount awarded plaintiff in error as hereinbefore set out. It is probable that in so far as the amount of the judgment rendered would be affected there is merit in the motion; but the record fails to disclqse any cross-assignment presenting the question so that it might be passed on by this court.

It has been the uniform practice in the Supreme Court that all questions, not involving fundamental error of law apparent on the record, must be presented by assignments or cross-assignments of error, and unless they are so presented the court will not consider them, however meritorious they may appear to be.

No complaint by cross-assignment on the part of defendant in error has been made in this court as to the amount of the judgment rendered against defendant in error by the Court of Civil Appeals, and hence we are unable to give the question consideration. Blum v. Moore, 91 Tex. 277, 42 S. W. 856; Texas Company v. Stephens, 100 Tex. 628, 103 S. W. 481.

Motion for rehearing and to reform judgment is overruled.