Court Opinion

ID: 9830765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:27:25.474595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:26.487022
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing by Appellee.
Appellee urges that the assignments of error are not sufficient to raise the issue upon-which we held the trial court committed error in excluding the testimony of the two witnesses, the point being made that the assignments do not set forth the particular ground upon which our ruling is based. The assignments assert error on the part of the court in excluding the testimony, but do not specify any reasons why the testimony should have been admitted. As early as 1S93 the Supreme Court laid down the rule that the purpose of the assignment of error is to point out with distinctness the particular ruling complained of, and that it is not necessary to give the reasons why the ruling is erroneous. Land Co. v. McClelland Bros., 86 Tex. 179, 23 S. W. 576, 1100, 22 L. R. A. 105. This has been the uniform ruling of the Supreme Court ever *231since. It arises from a proper construction of Court of Civil Appeals Rule No. 24.
In so far as appellant’s brief is concerned, wbicb is criticized in tbe same regard, tbe following quotation from Medearis v. Granberry, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 187, 84 S. W. 1070, 1071, is apropos:
“A rigid enforcement of tbe rules in reference to the preparation of briefs would deprive tbe appellants of consideration of most of tbe assignments of error relied on for reversal ; but as tbe record shows that they are so poor as to be compelled to resort to a pauper’s oath in order to prosecute their appeal, this court has, in tbe exercise of its discretion, considered tbe questions presented. # * * »
Tbe motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.