Court Opinion

ID: 9827823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:52:41.692992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:37.358724
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
[12] Upon rehearing appellee asks that the judgment of the court below be reformed and affirmed as to that land which there was evidence to show was covered by the Angelus Hotel. It is unnecessary to determine whether or not it would be permissible to so do for the reason that, in any event, the cause must be reversed for the error of the court in overruling the special exception made the basis of the twenty-first assignment of error. For the reason pointed out in our opinion, this assignment was sustained, but it is insisted that this court should not have considered the same because it is multifarious. Article 1612, R. S., as amended by chapter 136, Acts 33d Legislature, provides that an assignment shall be sufficient which directs the atten*239tion of the court to the error complained of. The twenty-first assignment complains of the overruling of appellants’ third exception to the cross-action of the appellee, and in overruling various subdivisions of said exception. It may be that this assignment, strictly speaking, is multifarious, but it certainly directed the attention of the court to the error complained of, and, in view of the foregoing amendment, we doubt whether it is permissible to refuse consideration of an assignment simply upon the ground that it is multifarious. Kilgore v. Savage, 164 S. W. 1081. But, however this may be, the fact remains that this court did consider the same and sustained the subjoined proposition attacking the sufficiency of the allegation of fraud contained in the cross-action.
[13] The rules prescribed for briefing are not of such ironclad nature as to preclude the court from, consideration, upon its merits, of any question presented upon appeal. As a matter of fact, if the courts confined themselves to a consideration only of assignments briefed in strict conformity with the rules, a very large proportion of assignments would be disposed of upon technical grounds rather than upon their merits. It has been the practice always for'the courts, in their discretion, to consider an assignment which may not have been presented in strict conformity with the rules. Except for a short time subsequent to the first organization of this court, it has been the uniform practice of this court to do so, whether or not the rules of briefing have been strictly complied with in presenting the same. It has been found imperatively necessary so to do, otherwise appeals would be disposed of upon technical considerations rather than upon their merits. This court now considers all questions upon their merits, unless there has been a disregard of some statutory provision or a flagrant and inexcusable disregard of the rules of briefing. The objection urged to the consideration of the first assignment is technical, and we are not disposed to refuse consideration thereof upon that ground. We therefore adhere to our action in considering and sustaining the twenty-first assignment
Overruled.
WALTHALL, J., did not sit, being absent on committee of judges assisting the Supreme Court.