Case Name: MIDLAND RUBBER CO. v. WALDMAN
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-01-09
Citations: 257 S.W. 929
Docket Number: No. 1032
Parties: MIDLAND RUBBER CO. v. WALDMAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 257
Pages: 929–929

Head Matter:
MIDLAND RUBBER CO. v. WALDMAN.
(No. 1032.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.
Jan. 9, 1924.)
Appeal and error &wkey;>766 — -Contentions for reversal not considered, where appellant’s, brief does not comply with court rules, and there is no fundamental error.
"Where appellant’s brief does not comply with the rules of the Court of Civil Appeals relating to briefing, and there is no fundamental error, the appellant’s contentions for reversal will not be considered.
Appeal from Hardin County Court; Thos. F. Teel, Judge.
Action by the Midland Rubber Company against A. H. "Waldman. Judgment for defendant, . and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
B. L. Ayeock and Coe & Briggs, all of Kountze, for appellant.
Singleton & Bevil, of Kountze, for appel-lee.

Opinion:
HIGHTOWER, C. J.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Hardin county, denying to appellant recovery for the value of certain merchandise, which appellant alleged was sold and delivered by it to appellee, amounting to $170.50. This is the second appeal of this case to this court, the judgment being adverse to appellant on both trials.
A full statement of the nature of the suit will be found in our opinion bn the first appeal, reported in 246 S. W. 109.
On this appeal, counsel for appellee makes strenuous objections to the consideration by this court of any of appellant's contentions for reversal, and moves to strike appellant's brief for failure to comply with the rules of briefing causes in this court, especially rules 29, 30, and 32. Upon consideration of this matter, it is manifest that counsel for ap-' pellant has wholly failed to comply with the rules for briefing causes in this court, and therefore the contentions for reversal are not considered.
There is no fundamental error, as suggested by appellant, and the judgment is ordered affirmed.