Case Name: E. G. RALL GRAIN CO. v. BURKS-SIMMONS CO.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-10-17
Citations: 171 S.W. 1043
Docket Number: No. 8017
Parties: E. G. RALL GRAIN CO. v. BURKS-SIMMONS CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 171
Pages: 1043–1043

Head Matter:
E. G. RALL GRAIN CO. v. BURKS-SIMMONS CO.
(No. 8017.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Ft. Worth.
Oct. 17, 1914.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1914.)
Appeal and Eeeoe (§ 742*) — Questions Be-viewable — Assignments of Eeeoe.
An assignment of error, complaining of the overruling of a plea of privilege, which does not contain a substantial copy of the only paragraph of the motion for new trial referring to the subject, must be disregarded under Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 1612, and Court Buies 23, 29 (142 S. W. xii).
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3000; Dec. Dig: § 742.*]
Appeal from Comanche County Court; J. H. McMillan, Judge.
Action by the Burks-Simmons Company against the E. G. Ball Grain Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Crenshaw & Boykin, of Et. Worth, for appellant. Kearby & Kearby, of Comanche, for appellee.

Opinion:
CONNEB, C. J.
This suit was instituted by the appellee company in the county court of Comanche county to recover a balance due upon a sale of 12,000 bushels of oats, and the only question presented for our consideration in appellant's brief is whether the court erred in overruling appellant's plea of privilege to be sued in Tarrant county, the place of its domicile.
An examination of the record discloses that the assignment presenting the question suggested cannot be said to be even a substantial copy of the only paragraph of appellant's motion for new trial which refers to the subject. The assignment must therefore be disregarded in accordance with a well-settled rule of practice. See Vernon's Sayles' Tex. Civ. Stat. art. 1612; Gen. Laws 1913, p. 276; Rules 23 and 29 (142 S. W. xii); Edwards v. Youngblood, 160 S. W. 288; Bradshaw v. Kearby & Kearby, 168 S. W. 436.
No other question having been presented, it is ordered that the judgment be affirmed.