Case Name: ALLEN et al. v. KITCHEN et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-02-19
Citations: 156 S.W. 331
Docket Number: 
Parties: ALLEN et al. v. KITCHEN et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 156
Pages: 331–332

Head Matter:
ALLEN et al. v. KITCHEN et al.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
Feb. 19, 1913.
On Motion for Rehearing, April 9, 1913.)
1. Appeal and Error (§ 757 ) — Briefs — Court Rules.
Where appellant’s brief contained nothing to indicate any motion for a new trial in the court below, all assignments of error must be disregarded, under rules for the Court of Civil Appeals (142 S. W. xii) 24 and 25, providing that assignments of error must distinctly specify the grounds of error relied on, and must refer to that portion of the motion for new trial in which the error is complained of.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3092; Dec. Dig. § 757. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2.Appeal and Error (§ 460 ) — Supersedeas Bond — Time for Filing.
Execution may be issued upon a judgment, notwithstanding the perfecting of an appeal by the filing of an appeal bond, or affidavit in lieu thereof, in accordance with Rev. Civ. St. 1911, arts. 2084, 2097, 2098, 2099, and 2100, providing for the perfection of appeals; a super-sedeas bond being required to prevent execution.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2217-2226, 2245, 2246; Dee. Dig. § 460. ]
3.Appeal and Error (§ 468 ) — Supersedeas Bond — Time for Filing.
Where an appeal has been perfected by the giving of an appeal bond or the making of a proper affidavit in lieu thereof, the supersedeas bond may be given at any time thereafter pending the appeal; but if no bond, other than the supersedeas bond, be given, it must be filed within the time fixed for perfecting appeals.
[Ed. Note. — -For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 2229; Dec. Dig. § 468. ]
4.Appeal and Error (§ 1226 ) — Supersede-as Bond — Remedy on Bond.
Where a valid supersedeas bond has been given and filed within the time required by law, and the appeal has not been prosecuted to effect, the appellee may sue on such bond as a common-law obligation, but if the supersedeas bond did not also amount to an appeal bond, so as to perfect the appeal, it is without consideration, and will not support an action; for, unless the appeal is duly perfected and a valid supersedeas bond is given, execution may issue, notwithstanding an attempted appeal.
[Ed. Noté. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error,] Cent. Dig. §§ 4734, 4735; Dec. Dig. §
Appeal from McCulloch County Court; Harvey Walker, Judge.
Action by C. D. Allen and others against R. D. Kitchen and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
J. É. Shropshire, of Brady, for appellants. Garnett & Hughston, of McKinney, for ap-pellees.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
JENKINS, J.
In this case the appel-lees object to our considering appellants' assignments of error, because they do not point out specifically any error committed by the court, and said assignments are in violation of rule 25, Rules for the Courts of Civil Appeals (142 S. W. xii), in that they do not refer to that portion of the motion for a new trial in which the supposed error is complained of, as required by said rule. Rule 24 requires that the assignment of error must distinctly specify the grounds of error relied on. Rule 25: "To be a distinct specification of error, it must point out that part of the proceedings contained in the record in which the error is complained of in a' par- tieular manner, so as to identify whether it be the rulings of the court upon a motion, or upon any particular part of the pleadings, or upon the admission or rejection of evidence, or upon any other matter relating to the cause or its trial, or the portion of the charge given or refused, the fact or facts in issue which the evidence was incompetent or insufficient to prove, the insufficiency of the verdict or finding of the jury, if special, and the particular matter in which the judgment is erroneous or illegal, with such reasonable certainty as may be practicable, in a succinct and clear statement, considering the matter referred to, and must refer to that portion of the motion for new trial in which the error is complained of." (Italics ours.)
There is nothing in appellants' brief to indicate that any motion for a new trial was filed in the court below, for which reason the objection to said assignments is sustained, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.