Case Name: HALBERT v. TOYAH VALLEY BANK
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-03-18
Citations: 175 S.W. 508
Docket Number: No. 416
Parties: HALBERT v. TOYAH VALLEY BANK.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 175
Pages: 508–509

Head Matter:
HALBERT v. TOYAH VALLEY BANK.
(No. 416.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
March 18, 1915.
Rehearing Denied April 15, 1915.)
Appeal and Error <&wkey;1135 — Affirmance — Failure to Snow Error.
Where the appellant files no brief and there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the judgment is one which the court could legally render, the judgment will be affirmed without consideration of the assignments of error.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4454, 4455; Dec. Dig. &wkey;> 1135.]
Appeal from Reeves County Court; H. N. McKellar, Judge.
Action by Toyah Valley Bank, a copartnership, against W. C. Halbert. Judgment for the plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
W. C. Halbert, in pro. per., of Saragosa, Harry MacTier, of Pecos, for appellee.

Opinion:
WALTHALL, J.
In this case, the plaintiffs R. P. Head, R. H. King, W. B. Vanderen, E. P. Stuckler, J. E. Meier, and J. H. Wolverton, representing themselves as copartners in trade and doing business under the firm name and style of Toyah Valley Bank, brought this suit in the county court of Reeves county, against the appellant, W. C. Halbert, on a past-due promissory note in the sum of $642.45, and admitting two payments thereon aggregating $325, and alleging that appellant, to secure said note, had executed and delivered to them a chattel mort gage on certain personal property described. Plaintiffs prayed judgment for tbe amount due, interest and attorney's fees provided for in tbe note, and foreclosure of tbe chattel mortgage lien, and general and special relief. Appellant answered by general and special exception, and general denial, and filed and presented to tbe court a motion for a continuance. Tbe court overruled tbe motion to continue, made no order on the exceptions, and entered judgment for plaintiffs against defendant for the balance due on tbe note, interest, attorney's fees and costs, and ordered a foreclosure of tbe chattel mortgage lien.
No briefs have been filed, and therefore tbe assignments of error as they appear in tbe record cannot be considered. There is no error of law apparent upon tbe record. Tbe judgment is one that could legally have been rendered in tbe lower court, and tbe case is affirmed.
<§s»For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes