Case Name: HEMPHILL v. NATIONAL IRON & STEEL CO.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-12-21
Citations: 142 S.W. 845
Docket Number: 
Parties: HEMPHILL v. NATIONAL IRON & STEEL CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 142
Pages: 845–846

Head Matter:
HEMPHILL v. NATIONAL IRON & STEEL CO.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
Dec. 21, 1911.
On Rehearing, Jan. 24, 1912.)
1. Appeal and Error (¡? 750 ) — Assignments op Eeroe — General oe Specific.
The only error assigned was “that the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s amended motion for new trial, and riot granting him a new trial for the reasons therein set forth.” The grounds set forth in the amended motion for new trial were, first, that the court erred in overruling the appellant’s plea of privilege to be sued in H. county; second, that the court erred in overruling the appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction over the subject-matter; and third, that the court erred in overruling defendant’s application for a continuance. Held, that the assignment was too general to require consideration of the first and third grounds stated in the motion for new trial, but that the second ground urged, being fundamental error, would be considered by the appellate court.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3,074-3083; Dec. Dig. § 750. ]
On Rehearing.
2. Appeal and Error (§ 742 ) — Assignments oe Ebror — Propositions.
Under rule 30 (67 S. W. xvi) for the Court of Civil Appeals, providing that each point under an assignment shall be stated as a proposition, unless the assignment itself discloses the point, where there are several points raised by an assignment, each point must be separately stated in the form of a proposition.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3000; Dec. Pig. § 742. ]
3. Appeal and ■ Error (§ 742 ) — Assignments oe Eeroe — Propositions.
Where an assignment raises more than one distinct proposition, it is not permissible to treat the assignment itself as a proposition raising all of the questions suggested, but these questions must be submitted as distinct propositions.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3000; Dec. Dig. § 742. ]
4. Appeal and Error (§ 742 ) — Assignments oe Error — Propositions.
An assignment of error containing within itself a correct proposition of law is insufficient where it is necessary to refer to the motion for new trial to ascertain the points raised by the assignment
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3000; Dec. Dig. § 742. ]
5. Appeal and Error (§ 742 ) — Assignments oe Error — Propositions.
Even if it is permissible in an assignment of error to refer to the motion for new trial for the joints raised, if the motion presents several distinct grounds or points, the assignment must be disregarded as being multifarious.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3000; Dec. Dig. § 742. ]
6. Appeal and Error (§ 742 ) — Assignments o'e Error — Propositions.
A portion of appellant’s brief covering two typewritten pages, and headed “First Proposition under First Assignment of Error,” but containing nothing except argument directed against the action of the trial court in overruling a motion for continuance, is in no sense a proposition under an assignment of error.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent Dig. § 3000; Dec. Dig. § 742. ]
7. Appeal and Error (§ 736 ) — Assignments oe Error — Distinct Questions.
A single assignment of error may raise many distinct and separate propositions, provided the propositions following the assignment are separately stated.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3028, 3029; Dec. Dig. § 736. ]
Appeal from District Court, Harris County ; W. P. Hamblen, Judge.
Action by the National Iron & Steel Company against M. R. Hemphill. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Baldwin & Taylor, for appellant. Sam Schwartz, 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.
The only assignment of error in the record in this case presented- for our consideration is as follows: "The trial court erred in overruling defendant's amended motion for new trial, and not granting him a new trial for- the reasons therein set forth." Upon examination of the amended motion, we find that three grounds were urged, viz.: First, that the court erred in overruling the appellant's plea, of privilege to be sued in the district court of Haskell county; second, the court erred in overruling the appellant's plea to the jurisdiction of the district court of Harris county over the subject-matter of the suit; third, the court erred in overruling the defendant's application for a continuance. This assignment is too general to require consideration of the first and third grounds stated. in the motion for new trial. The second ground urged, however, if well taken, would be fundamental error, and we have therefore examined the. record for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the district court of Harris county had jurisdiction over the subject-matter of this suit; and, it appearing that it did have jurisdiction thereof, the case is therefore affirmed.