Court Opinion

ID: 9833886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:07:06.631194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:08.489934
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[2] Appellant urges error in the court’s action in refusing to consider its assignments because not properly briefed. It is urged that appellant was entitled to ten days’ notice of the appellee’s objections1, under rule 15a (142 S. W. xi) for Courts of Civil Appeals. No notice is required where *122appellant' tails to comply with rule 29 in preparing his brief, and it makes no difference whether the action of the 'court is invoked by appellee in his brief, or whether the court of its own motion and volition refused to consider such defectively briefed assignments. Cooper v. Hiner, 91 Tex. 658, 45 S. W. 554; T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Eberheart, 91 Tex. 323, 43 S. W. 510; Stone v. Stitt, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 465, 121 S. W. 187; rule 29 for Courts of Civil Appeals. In this conclusion, we do not consider that we are disregarding article 1612, Vernon’s Say les’ Texas Civil Statutes, as amended by the Thirty-Third Legislature (Acts 33d Leg. c. 136) nor rule 101 (159 S. W. xi), adopted by the Supreme Court in compliance with said article; nor do we think we are in conflict with the holding of the Supreme Court in M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Beasley, 155 S. W. 183-187; nor with the Galveston court in Conn v. Rosamond, 161 S. W. 73; nor with the Amarillo Court in Kilgore v. Savage, 164 S. W. 1081. All these cases recognize that the rules of procedure and practice made by the Supreme 'Court are subject to legislation touching and controlling matters concerning which the rules treat. Article 1612 prior to the amendment in 1911 contained the language which we have not italicized in quoting said article as amended, to wit: '
“Assignments of Error; Requisites of. — -The appellant or plaintiff in error shall in all cases file with the clerk of the court below all assignments of error, 'distinctly specifying ' the grounds on which he relies, before he takes the transcript of [the] record from the clerk’s office; provided, that where a motion for new trial has heeh filed that the assignments therein shall constitute the assignments of error, and need not he repeated hy the filing of the assignments of error, and provided further, that all errors not distinctly specified are waived, hut an assignment shall he sufficient which directs the attention of the. court to the error complained of." • •'
The amendatory provision, [‘where a motion for new trial has been filed, that the assignments therein shall constitute the assignments of error,” limits the assignments to those presented in the motion for new trial, and hence restricts rather than enlarges appellant’s rights. Hence, if a more liberal policy with reference to assignments be introduced by these amendments to the original article, it- is1 because of the language “but an assignment shall be sufficient which directs the attention of the court to the error complained of.” We think, in the sense used, “direct” means “to cause to point1 or go straight to a thing.” Standard Dictionary. And that an assignment that fails1, either in itself, or by- proposition or by statement, as in those in -the instant case, to-direct the attention .of the court to the error charged, and to the basis for the contention made, is bad, and that Courts of Appeals are not required to give consideration thereto. We do not think the amended article was intended to or should be held to supplant rule 29, requiring each assignment to be accompanied with appropriate propositions and statements, or that else it “shall be regarded as. abandoned.” Douthitt v. Farrar, 159 S. W. 182.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.