Case ID: sw_178/html/0972-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KEY, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STEVENS v. MARSHALL et al.
    (No. 5507.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
    June 2, 1915.)
    1. Appeal and Error <@=758 — Questions Presented for Review — Briefs.
    Where appellant filed no assignments of error and the assignments in his brief did not refer to or correspond with any paragraph of his motion for new trial, he is not entitled to have matters attempted to be presented by the brief decided.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3093; Dee. Dig. <@==758.]
    2. Appeal and Error <@=302 — Assignments oe Error — Generality.
    Statements in the motion for new trial that the judgment was contrary to the evidence and the law are too general to constitute assignments of error.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 1744-1752; Dec. Dig. <@= 302.]
    Appeal from District Court, Hill County; Horton B. Porter, Judge.
    Election contest by John A. Stevens against J. W. Marshall and others. From a judgment for contestees, contestant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    D. E. Odell, of Cleburne, and Walter Collins, of Hillsboro, for appellant. M. S. Wood, of Itasca, and Morrow & Morrow, of Hills-boro, for appellees.
   KEY, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in an election contest. Appellant filed no assignments of error, and the alleged assignments in his brief do not refer to or correspond with any paragraph of his motion for a new trial, and, for that reason, he is not entitled to have this court decide the questions attempted to be presented in his brief. El Paso Electric Co. v. Lee, 157 S. W. 748, and cases there cited; Watson v. Patrick, 174 S. W. 632, and cases there cited. In fact, in his motion for a new trial he merely alleged: First, that the judgment “is contrary to the evidence in said cause”; second, “that the same is contrary to the law in said case.” That motion itself was too general to constitute an assignment of error. Harrington v. Chambers, 143 S. W. 662; Salliway v. Grand Lodge, 164 S. W. 1041; Ross v. Blount, 166 S. W. 913.

Appellees object to a consideration of appellant’s brief, and the objections must be sustained. However, the case is very plain and simple, and we feel constrained to say that, in our opinion, the proper judgment was rendered, and no brief could have been filed in this court which would have entitled appellant to have the case reversed.

Judgment affirmed. 
      @=»For other cases sea same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes