Court Opinion

ID: 9831529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:09:58.368284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:35.559999
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellants’ proposition that the trial court erred in permitting appellee to introduce in evidence' a certified copy of the chattel mortgage in suit without having filed same in the cause before announcement of ready for trial as required by article 5493, R. S. 1925, .and their proposition that the court erred in permitting appellee to prove the notes in suit and secured by the mortgage, without laying a sufficient and proper predicate that the notes were lost, were not considered in the original opinion, and cannot now be considered, because they are not predicated upon any assignment or assignments of error found in the transcript. It is true that assignments 10 and 11 in appellants’ brief present the questions; but these assignments are supposed to be paragraphs 13 and 14 of appellants’ motion for a new trial which were copied in the transcript as assignments of error, and which do not contain either of the matters mentioned. It is too well settled to necessitate discussion that, where the motion for a new trial is copied in the transcript as assignments of error, the assignments of error in the brief must correctly copy the grounds of said motion; otherwise, they cannot be considered. Article 1844, p. 74, 4 Vernon’s 1925 Annotated Statutes.
We find no assignment or proposition presented either in the original brief or the motion for a rehearing which points out any error requiring a reversal of this case, and the motion is therefore overruled.
Motion overruled.