Case Name: TEXAS BLUE BONNET OIL CO. v. W. C. JONES DRILLING CO.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-03-09
Citations: 228 S.W. 972
Docket Number: No. 1773
Parties: TEXAS BLUE BONNET OIL CO. v. W. C. JONES DRILLING CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 228
Pages: 972–972

Head Matter:
TEXAS BLUE BONNET OIL CO. v. W. C. JONES DRILLING CO.
(No. 1773.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.
March 9, 1921.)
Appeal and error &wkey;>722( I) — Assignments In brief which are not substantial copies of assignments in record need not be considered.
Assignments of error in appellant’s brief which are reconstructed from the motion for a new trial and are not substantial copies of any assignments of error contained in the record are not entitled to he considered under Rev. St. 1911, art. 1612, and Rules 23 and 29 (142 S. W. xii) for Courts of Civil Appeals.
Appeal from Wichita County Court; Elmer De Montel, Special Judge.
Action between the Texas Blue Bonnet Oil Company and the W. C. Jones Drilling Company. Judgment for the Drilling Company, and the Oil Company appeals.
Affirmed.
Nicholson & Felder, of Wichita Falls, for ■appellant.
Cook, Spencer & Bailey, of Wichita Falls, for appellee.

Opinion:
BOYCE, J.
The appellant's assignments, as presented in its brief, are reconstructed from the motion for new trial, and are not substantial copies of any assignments of error contained in the record. For this reason they are not entitled to be considered. R. C. S. art. 1612; Rules 23 and 29 (142 S. W. xii) for Courts of Civil Appeals; Hess v. Turney, 109 Tex. 208, 203 S. W. 593; Mansfield v. Mansfield, 198 S. W. 169; Waco Oil & Refining Co. v. Texas Refining Co., 207 S. W. 978; Chancellor v. Slaughter, 210 S. W. 239. We may say, however, that we have examined the two assignments present-' ed. They both complain that the findings of the jury are not supported by the evidence, but we think that the evidence amply sustains both the findings complained of. So that if the assignments were properly presented they should be in any event overruled.