Case Name: BIGGS v. BLOUNT et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-12-06
Citations: 151 S.W. 1114
Docket Number: 
Parties: BIGGS v. BLOUNT et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 151
Pages: 1114–1114

Head Matter:
BIGGS v. BLOUNT et al.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.
Dec. 6, 1912.)
Appeal and Error (§ 753 ) — Transcript— Assignment op Eeboes.
Where the transcript does not contain a copy' of an assignment of errors required by statute and court rules to be filed below, the Court of Civil Appeals will only consider errors of law apparent upon the record, if the judgment could under any circumstances have been legally rendered, and will affirm if there be no such errors.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3086-3089; Dee. Dig. § 753. ]
Appeal from District Court, Nacogdoches County; James 1. Perkins, Judge.
Action between S. V. Biggs - and E. A. Blount and others. From the judgment, the first-named party appeals.
Affirmed.
Ingraham & Hodges and Y. E. Middle-brook, all of Nacogdoches, for appellant. Blount & Strong, of Nacogdoches, for appel-lees.
For other eases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
McMEANS, J.
The transcript in this case does not contain a copy of an assignment of errors required by the statute and rules to be filed in the court below, and it does not appear that an assignment of errors was filed in the trial court. In the absence of such assignment, this court will not consider any error but one of law that may be apparent upon the record, if the judgment is one that could have been legally rendered in the district court. As there is no fundamental error apparent of record in the proceedings, and as the judgment was one that could legally have been rendered in the district court, it is our duty to affirm the judgment, and it is so ordered. Harris v. Petty, 66 Tex. 516, 1 S. W. 525; Bopp v. Ganger, 26 S. W. 244; Lewis v. Steiner, 84 Tex. 364, 19 S. W. 516; Durham v. Garrett, 121 S. W. 1141.
Affirmed.