Case Name: EL PASO ELECTRIC RY. CO. v. LEE
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-04-24
Citations: 157 S.W. 748
Docket Number: 
Parties: EL PASO ELECTRIC RY. CO. v. LEE.
Judges: HARPER, C. J., did not sit in this case.
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 157
Pages: 748–751

Head Matter:
EL PASO ELECTRIC RY. CO. v. LEE.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
April 24, 1913.
On Rehearing, May 22, 1913.)
1. Appeal and Error (§ 743 9 — Assignments oe Error — Refeeence to Motion eob New Tbial.
Assignments of error which merely state that error was complained of in appellant’s motion for a new trial, but do not refer to that part of the motion in which the error was complained of, as required by rule 25 of the Courts of Civil Appeals (142 S. W. xii), will not be considered.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2999, 3011; Dec. Dig. § 743. ]
On Rehearing.
2. Cotjbts (§ 92 ) — Rules op Decision — Obi-tee Dictum.
Where the applicability of amended rule 24 for Courts of Civil Appeals (142 S. Wr. xii), amended January 24, 1912, was not presented by the record in a case in the Supreme Court, its discussion of the matter to which the rule related should be regarded as obiter dictum, and as such not binding on this court.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 335; Dec. Dig. § 92. ]
3. Appeal and Ebeob (§ 288 ) — Prerequisites — Motion poe New Tbial.
Prior to the adoption of rule 71a for district and county courts (145 S. W. vii), amended January 24, 1912, and requiring a motion for a new trial to be filed in all cases on appeal unless the error complained of is fundamental, except in such cases as the statutes do not require a motion for a new trial, there was no necessity in any case to file such a motion when the grounds for reversal related to any ruling of the trial court, .though, in order that certain matters might be reviewed upon by appeal, they must have been called to the attention of the trial court by such a motion.
[Ed. Note. — F’or other cases, see Appeal and Error. Cent. Dig. §§ 1673, 1676-1679; Dec. Dig. § 288. ]
4. Couets (§ 78 ) — Rules op Oouet — Authority to Make.
Under the express provision of Rev. Civ. St. 1911, art. 1524, authority is conferred upon the Supreme Court to make, establish, and enforce rules of practice and procedure for the government of the various courts.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 274, 276-281; Dec. Dig. § 78. ]
5. Appeal and Ebroe (§ 281 ) — Prerequi- ' sites — Motion poe New Trial — Rules op Court.
Rule 24 for Courts of Civil Appeals (142 S. W. xii) provides that assignments of error •shall distinctly specify the grounds of error relied on and set forth in the motion for a new trial, and that a ground of error not distinctly set forth in the motion shall be considered as waived unless it be fundamental error ; rule 25 requires that the motion shall point out the part of the record in which the error is complained of; and rule 71a for the district and county courts (145 S. W. vii) requires a motion for a new trial to be filed in all cases where the parties desire to appeal, unless the error is fundamental. Held, that the rules, considered together, were intended to change the rules of practice established by the former decisions of the Supreme Court, and especially the rule that the party need not call certain errors to the attention of the trial court in a motion for a new trial.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 1650-1661, 3024, 3281; Dec. Dig. § 281. ]
6. Appeal and Error (§ 281 ) — Presentment op Grounds op Review — Motion poe New Trial.
Rule 71a for district and county courts (145 S. W. vii), requiring that a motion for a new trial be filed in all cases where parties desire to appeal, does not conflict with Rev. Civ. St. 1911, §§ 2061, 2062, dispensing with the necessity of taking formal bills of exception to the ruling of the court in giving, refusing, or qualifying of instructions and rulings and actions of the court which otherwise appear of record.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 1650-1661, 3024, 3281; Dec. Dig. § 281. ]
7. Appeal and Ereob (§ 281 ) — Presentation op Grounds op Review — Motion poe New Trial — Statutes.
The importance of rules 24 and 25 for Courts of Civil Appeals (142 S. W. xii), requiring assignments of error to distinctly specify the error relied upon and distinctly set forth in a motion for a new trial, on penalty of waiver, and providing that the motion shall point out the part of the record in which the error is complained of, and rule 71a for district and county courts (145 S. W. vii) making a motion for a new trial necessary in all cases of appeal fronj the judgment of a trial court, is not destroyed by Acts 33d Leg., approved April 4, 1913, amending Rev. Civ. St. 1911, art. 1612, providing that the appellant shall file with the clerk of the court below all the assignments of error, distinctly specifying the grounds on which he relies before he takes the transcript_ from the clerk’s office, and that where a motion for a new trial has been filed the assignments need not be repeated, since the amendment merely dispenses with the necessity of filing assignments when a motion for new trial has been filed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 1650-1661, 3024, 3281; Dec. Dig. § 281. ]
Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; James R. Harper, Judge.
Action by J. D. Lee against the El Paso Electric Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Davis & Goggin, of El Paso, and Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, of Houston, for appellant. W. B. Ware and Patterson & Wallace, all of El Paso, for appellee.
For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HIGGINS, J.
This was an action for damages resulting from personal injuries sustained by appellee while in the service of the appellant as an electric lineman. From a judgment in his favor, this appeai is prosecuted.
Rule 25 for the government of the Courts of Civil Appeals (142 S. W. xii) expressly provides that assignments of error "must- refer to that portion of the motion for a new trial in which the error is complained of." The Supreme Court has promulgated this rule for the government and guidance of the Courts of Civil Appeals, and, so far as this court is concerned, it is our purpose to enforce it.
The assignments of error in this case merely state that the error was complained of in defendant's motion for a new trial, but fail to refer us to the portion of the motion in which the error was complained of. This does not comply with the rule which we have quoted, and the assignments will therefore not be considered. 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.
HARPER, C. J., did not sit in this case.