Court Opinion

ID: 9655395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:08:50.038159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:18.057067
License: Public Domain

BARROW, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the affirmance of the judgment of the trial court, but wish to express-my views with reference to appellant’s first • point.
It is my opinion that appellant’s first point is multifarious and too general to be considered. Said point is as follows:
“The trial in the County Court on'' appeal of the Department’s administrative orders was not a trial de novo —‘tried without regard to any prior holding of fact or law by the Department’- — and the Court should not have permitted the Department’s pleadings setting out the prior actions and findings of the Department to be read to-the jury;' should not have permitted *317■ the Department’s prior orders, appealed from, as such, to be introduced into evidence and submitted to the jury.”
Rule 418(b), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, provides:
“A statement of the points upon which the appeal is predicated, separately numbered in short form and without argument, and germane to one ■ or more assignments of error when assignments are required. Such points will be sufficient if they direct the attention of the court to the error relied upon and they should ordinarily be so concisely stated that they may appear, separately numbered, on a single page of the brief. Assignments of error need not be copied in the brief, and may be cited by reference only.”
Appellant’s point includes: 1. The trial in the County Court was not a trial de novo. 2. The case was not tried without regard to any prior holding of law or fact by the Department. 3. The court should not have permitted that part of the Department’s pleading setting out the prior actions and holdings to be read to the jury, and 4. should not have permitted the Department’s prior orders appealed from to be offered in evidence and submitted to the jury-
Appellant’s first assertion that he was denied a trial de novo is simply a general conclusion without specifying any particular ruling complained of. In that connection the record shows that the case was tried not under the substantial evidence rule, but under the preponderance of evidence rule and the burden of proof placed on the Department.
The second complaint is likewise a general statement which does not specify any particular action or ruling.
Under the third and fourth subdivisions of appellant’s point he complains of numerous rulings:
(a)Overruling his motion to strike pleading.
(b) Overruling his exception to pleading.
(c) Reading objectionable parts of the pleading to the jury over his objection.
(d) Offering in evidence orders and findings over objection.
(e) Overruling motion to disregard evidence offered.
(f) Overruling objection to the court’s charge.
These appear to have been the specific rulings complained of by appellant and should have been separate points. I think that the total effect thereof was to deny the trial de novo.
I think appellant’s point falls within the criticism of the Supreme Court in Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. v. McFerrin, Tex., 291 S.W.2d 931, and McWilliams v. Muse, Tex., 300 S.W.2d 643.