Case ID: sw_157/html/0753-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARPER, C. J. HARPER, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SOUTHERN PAC. CO. v. WALTERS.
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
    May 1, 1913.
    On Rehearing, June 19, 1913.)
    Appeal and Ebbob (§ 743) — Questions Reviewable — Assignments of Ebbob — Rules of Court.
    Assignments of error containing no reference to the part of the motion for new trial in which the errors were complained of in the trial court, as required by Court of Civil Appeals Rule 25 (142 -S. W. xii), will not be considered.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2999, 3011; Dec. Dig. § 743.]
    Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; Dan M. Jackson, Judge.
    Action by Mary Walters, temporary admin-istratrix of F. G. Walters, deceased, against the Southern Pacific Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    ■Beall & Kemp, of El Paso, William F. Her-rin, of San Francisco, Cal., and Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, of Houston, for appellant. Patterson, Wallace & Gardner, of El Paso, and H. M. Wurzbaeh, of Seguin, for appellee.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes
    
   HARPER, C. J.

This is a suit brought by Mary Walters, temporary administratrix of the estate of F. G. Walters, deceased, to recover damages for the death of said Walters. Case was tried before jury and resulted in a verdict against defendant for the sum of $5,000.

The assignments of error in appellant’s brief will not be considered by us because not in compliance with rule 25 for Courts of Civil Appeals' (142 S. W. xii), in that there is no appropriate reference to the part of the motion for new trial in which the error was complained of in the court below. The appellant’s motion for new trial was overruled December 5, 1912. The brief was filed in this court March 25, 1913. Parties to suit and their attorneys certainly have had ample time to familiarize themselves with the rules promulgated in January, 19jl2. Jones v. Edwards, 152 S. W. 727; Railway Co. v. Ledbetter, 153 S. W. 646; Nunn v. Veale, 149 S. W. 758; Murphy v. Earl, 150 S. W. 486; Tiefel v. Maxwell, 154 S. W. 319; Railway Co. v. Gray, 154 S. W. 229; Konz v. Henson, 156 S. W. 593, recently decided by this court and not yet officially reported.

No fundamental error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

McKENZIE, j., did not sit in this case.

On Rehearing.

HARPER, C. J.

In opinion rendered upon rehearing in El Paso Electric Railway Co. v. Lee, 157 8. W. 748, just filed and not yet officially reported, we at length state our reasons for declining to consider assignments of error which do not comply with that provision of amended rule 25 (142 8. W. xii), which requires the same to refer to that portion of the motion for a new trial in which the error is complained of. We here now refer to this opinion as stating in full our reasons for declining to consider the assignments in this case, as violative of such amended rule; copy of said opinion being hereto attached.