Case Name: HART v. H. R. & A. T. MAST
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-02-10
Citations: 248 S.W. 1099
Docket Number: No. 893
Parties: HART v. H. R. & A. T. MAST.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 248
Pages: 1099–1100

Head Matter:
HART v. H. R. & A. T. MAST.
(No. 893.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.
Feb. 10, 1923.
Rehearing Denied March 14, 1923.)
Appeal and error <&wkey; 193(1) — Error only reached by special exception not fundamental.
Where alleged defects in a petition could have been reached only by special exception, fundamental error cannot be suggested.
Appeal from District Court, Nacogdoches County; L. D. Guinn, Judge.
Action by H. R. & A. T. Mast against Max W. Hart. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Russell & Seale and V. E. Middlebrook, all of Nacogdoches, for appellant.
Hodges & Grave, of Nacogdoches, for appel-lees.
Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction May 2, 1923.

Opinion:
HIGHTOWER, O. J.
This was a suit by the appellees, II. R. and A. T. Mast, against the appellant, Max W. Hart, and others made defendants with him. on two notes, and for the foreclosure of a deed of trust lien on certain land in Nacogdoches county. Upon trial appellees were awarded judgment for $4,697, that being, the principal and accrued interest due on the notes at the date of judgment, and foreclosure of the deed of trust lien was also decreed. From that judgment Hart is the only defendant appealing.
We have examined appellant's brief, hut have discovered no assignment, of error to any action of the trial court, and therefore that court's judgment ought to be affirmed unless fundamental error is apparent on the face of the record.
Counsel for appellant has suggested fundamental error by contending that the petition of the plaintiffs was subject to the general demurrer interposed by appellant. Clearly, there is nothing in appellant's contention. The defects in the plaintiffs' petition that counsel would now point out could have only been reached by special exception.
It has been ordered that the judgment be affirmed.