Case ID: sw_292/html/0555-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LEVY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FARMERSVILLE MILL & LIGHT CO. v. MOORE et al.
    (No. 3315.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
    Jan. 13, 1927.)
    1. Appeal and error <&wkey;870(3)— Consideration of order overruling plea of privilege held waived by failure to appeal where cause was not tried on merits until second term thereafter.
    Appellant held, to have w.aived consideration of an order overruling his plea of privilege by not appealing at the term when the order was overruled, the cause not being tried on its merits until second term after the decision overruling the plea of privilege.
    2. Appeal and error <&wkey;732 — Assignment that court erred in overruling motion for new trial, not followed by discussion, held too general to be considered.
    Assignment of error that the court erred in overruling amended motion for new trial when not followed by a discussion or a statement from the record held entirely too general to be considered on appeal.
    Appeal from District Court, Harrison County ; P. 0. Beard, Judge.
    Suit by D. M. Moore and another against the Farmersville Mill & Eight Company and another. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant company appeals.
    Affirmed.
    A. D. Beck, as principal, and D. M. Moore and W. S. Harris, as sureties, executed a bond to the Farmersville Mill & Eight Company, in effect to guarantee the payment of the price of flour, meal, and other products sold to A. D. Beck on 30 days’ time. D. M. Moore and W. S. Harris filed the suit against the mill and light company and A, D. Beck to cancel the bond, claiming that they were released from the further terms of the bond because of agreed extension of maturity of indebtedness due by A. D. Beck without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, and upon other grounds set out. The principal and the sureties on the bond resided in Harrison county, where the suit was brought on October 19, 1925. The Farmersville Mill & Light Company, a private corporation, had its domicile in Collin county. The Farmersville Mill & Light Company filed a plea of privilege to be sued in Collin county, which was controverted by the plaintiffs in the suit. The plea was heard and overruled on November 27, 1925. The mill and light company excepted to overruling the plea, but did not give notice of appeal. The case was not tried at that term of court. At the second term of the court after the plea of privilege was overruled the case was tried on its merits, and in keeping with the verdict of the jury a judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs. The appeal is from that judgment.
    The two errors presented in the brief are:
    “(1) The court erred in overruling appellant’s plea of privilege and in refusing to transfer the case to the district court of Collin county.
    “(2) The court erred in overruling the amended motion for new trial of Farmersville Mill & Light • Company.”
    Floyd Harry, of Farmersville, and B. R. Lindsay, of Marshall, for appellant.
    Carey M. Abney and D. H. Wittenberg, both of Marshall, for appellees.
   LEVY, J.

(after stating the facts as above). [1,2] It-appears that the two assignments .of error, or “propositions,” were intended to relate to* the plea of privilege, as the “statement” in the brief refers entirely to such plea. In the circumstances of the case the appellant would be held to have waived consideration of the order overruling the plea of privilege by not appealing at the term the order was overruled, the cause not being tried on its merits at that term of court. Grain Co. v. Windsor & Stanley (Tex. Com. App.) 255 S. W. 158, is a case similar to and which rules the present one in respect to waiver of the plea by failure to appeal. If the second assignment of error, or “proposition,” was not intended to relate specially to the plea of privilege, as we think was intended to be done, then it cannot be considered, being entirely too general in its nature and not followed by a discussion or a statement from the record.

The judgment is ordered affirmed. 
      &wkey;oFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes