Case Name: FARMERSVILLE MILL & LIGHT CO. v. MOORE et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1927-01-13
Citations: 292 S.W. 555
Docket Number: No. 3315
Parties: FARMERSVILLE MILL & LIGHT CO. v. MOORE et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 292
Pages: 555–556

Head Matter:
FARMERSVILLE MILL & LIGHT CO. v. MOORE et al.
(No. 3315.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
Jan. 13, 1927.)
Floyd Harry, of Farmersville, and B. R. Lindsay, of Marshall, for appellant.
Carey M. Abney and D. H. Wittenberg, both of Marshall, for appellees.

Opinion:
LEVY, J.
(after stating the facts as above). [1,2] It-appears that the two assignments .of error, or "propositions," were intended to relate to* the plea of privilege, as the "statement" in the brief refers entirely to such plea. In the circumstances of the case the appellant would be held to have waived consideration of the order overruling the plea of privilege by not appealing at the term the order was overruled, the cause not being tried on its merits at that term of court. Grain Co. v. Windsor & Stanley (Tex. Com. App.) 255 S. W. 158, is a case similar to and which rules the present one in respect to waiver of the plea by failure to appeal. If the second as signment of error, or "proposition," was not intended to relate specially to the plea of privilege, as we think was intended to be done, then it cannot be considered, being entirely too general in its nature and not followed by a discussion or a statement from the record.
The judgment is ordered affirmed.