Case Name: MURPHY v. EARL
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-10-10
Citations: 150 S.W. 486
Docket Number: 
Parties: MURPHY v. EARL.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 150
Pages: 486–488

Head Matter:
MURPHY v. EARL.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
Oct. 10, 1912.
On Motion for Rehearing, Oct. 30, 1912.)
1. Appeal and Error (§ 502*) — Questions Reviewable — Record—Motion for New Trial.
Under Courts of Civil Appeals Rule 24 (142 S. W. xii), providing that each assignment of error must distinctly specify the grounds of error relied on in the motion for new trial, and that a ground of error not set forth in the motion for new trial shall be considered as waived, assignments of error complaining of the giving and refusal of instructions must be treated as waived where there is no motion for new trial in the record, and in the absence of fundamental error the judgment will be affirmed without any inquiry into the merits.
. [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2306-2309; Dec. Dig. § 502.*]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Appeal and Error (§ 285*) — Fundamental Error — Overruling Demurrer.
The error in overruling a general demurrer to the answer is not fundamental error and cannot be considered without motion for new trial.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 1684-1690; Dec. Dig. § 285.*]
3. Appeal and Error (§ 281*)— Questions Reviewable — Rules op Court — Motion for New Trial.
Courts of Civil Appeals Rule 24 (142 S. W. xii), providing that each assignment of error must distinctly specify the grounds of error relied on and set forth in the motion for new trial, and that a ground of error not distinctly set forth in the motion shall be considered as waived, and District Court Rule 71a (145 S. W. vii), requiring a motion for new trial in all cases'as-a prerequisite to appeal, except in cases where the. statute ¿loes not require a motion for new trial, require a motion for new trial in every case except such cases as by statute do not require a motion.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Gent. Dig. '§§ 1650-1661, 3024, 3281; Dec. Dig. § 281. ]
4. Brokers (§ 65 )—Evidence (§ 434 )—Em-ployment — Contracts Between ' Principal and Broker—Validity—Farol Evidence.
An agent, employed to procure a purchaser of land at $40 per acre for a 10 per cent, commission, who, by fraud, induced the owner to sign a contract, with the name of the purchaser blank, to sell at $20 per acre, while the agent had a purchaser at $40 per acre, and who inserted in the blank the name of a third person who should hold title in trust for the agent, who executed a receipt of resale to another, could not maintain an action for the owner’s failure to perform the contract of sale, and the owner, if in ignorance of the facts at the time of the signing of the contract, could prove by parol the fraud of the agent and defeat a recovery.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Brokers, Cent. Dig. §§ 48-50; Dec. Dig. § 65; Evidence, Gent. Dig. §§ 2005-2020; Dec. Dig. § 434. ]
Error from El Paso County Court; A. S. Eylar, Judge.
Action by John H. Murphy against E. W. Earl. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
Frank G. Morris and S. B. Gillett, both of El Paso, for plaintiff in error. McBroom & Scott, of El Paso, for defendant in error.
For other cases see same topic and section. NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PETICOLAS, C. J.
This was a suit tried before a jury in the county court of El Paso county, Tex., by John H. Murphy against E. W. Earl for failure to perform a contract of sale by the execution of a deed, resulting in a judgment on January 22, 1912, in favor of E. W. Earl. There is no motion for a new trial in the record. The assignments of error are addressed to the overruling of one of plaintiff's special exceptions to error in giving a certain special charge, to error in giving certain paragraphs of the main charge, and in refusing to give a special charge requested by plaintiff.
Among the rules adopted regulating practice in the Courts of Civil Appeals, which went into effect January 1, 1912, is rule No. 24 (142 S. W. xii), which is as follows: "The assignment of error must distinctly specify the grounds of error relied on and distinctly set forth in the motion for a new trial in the cause, and a ground of error not distinctly set forth in a motion for a new trial in the cause and not distinctly specified in reference to that which is shown in the record, or not specified at all, shall be considered as waived, unless it be so fundamental that the court would act upon it without an assignment of error as mentioned in rule 23."
We find no error so fundamental as that the court would act upon it without an assignment of error. The judgment is one that could legally have been rendered in the lower court and affirmed in the appellate court, and as the rule quoted provides that each assignment of error must distinctly specify the grounds of error relied on and set forth in the motion for a new trial, and that a ground of error not distinctly set forth in the motion for new trial shall be considered as waived, it follows that each and all of these assignments of error must be treated in this court as having been waived; and, there being no fundamental error, the ease must be affirmed without an in'quiry into its merits, and it is so ordered.