Case ID: tex-civ-app_45/html/0080-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "EIDSON, Associate Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Henry Eckert et al. v. Mrs. B. McDermott.
    Decided January 23, 1907.
    1. —Brief—Statement—Bill of Exceptions.
    The nature of the evidence, the exclusion of which is assigned as error, should be shown by the statement in appellant’s brief. The court is not required to learn it from the hill of exceptions in the record.
    2. —Assignment—Bindings of Bact—Sufficiency of Evidence.
    Assignments of error in that the facts found by the judge do not -support his conclusions based thereon do not raise the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of fact.
    Appeal from the District Court of Tom Green County. Tried below before Hon. J. W. Timmons.
    Under the assignments that the conclusion of law by the trial court that neither an express nor a resulting trust in the land was established in favor of defendants was not supported by Ms findings of fact, the contention of appellant’s brief seems rather to be that the evidence did not support his finding of fact that the plaintiff bought the lot for herself and paid for it with her own money and that it was not bought for Dragoo nor paid for with his money.
    
      Wright & Wynn, for appellants.
    
      Hill & Lee, for appellees.
   EIDSON, Associate Justice.

was an action of trespass to try title brought in the court below by appellee. Dpon a trial before the court without a jury, judgment was rendered for appellee for the land in controversy and for rents in the sum of $24. The court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. In our opinion such findings of fact are supported by the testimony embraced in the record, and the conclusions of law are correct, in view of the findings of fact.

Appellants’ first assignment of error can not be considered by us, as neither the assignment, proposition thereunder, nor the statement made by appellants in their brief shows the nature or character of the check, the name of the drawer or drawee, the amount, its date, whether payable at sight or at some period after sight. We are not required to go to the record to ascertain what the bill of exceptions shows. (Rule 31 for Courts of Civ. Apps., 84 Texas, 702; Johnson v. Lyford, 9 Texas Civ. App., 88.)

Appellants’ other assignments of error contend that the conclusions of law of the court below, to the effect that neither a resulting nor express trust in the land was established in favor of appellants were not justified by the findings of fact. We can not agree with this contention of appellants. We think the finding of fact by the court, which is as . follows: “I find that the money paid for said lot was money of the plaintiff Mrs. B. McDermott; I further find that the lot in question was not bought by plaintiff for E. A. Dragoo nor paid for with his money,” warranted the conclusions of law above stated. We are further "of opinion that the testimony of appellee, as shown by the record, justified the finding of fact made by the court and indicated above.

We do not think the record discloses any reversible error. All of appellants’ assignments of errors are overruled and the judgment of the court below affirmed.

Affirmed.