Court Opinion

ID: 9833842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:05:18.877548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:07.637517
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee insists that, under the rules promulgated by the "Supreme Court, none of the assignments of error should be considered. Rules were adopted presumably for the protection of the trial and appellate courts; and, while it is a violation of the rules to fail to refer to the page of the transcript where the matter complained of is found, this court, and not appellee, is inconvenienced by it. We believe in a reasonable enforcement of the rules, although it seems to be a hazardous proceeding, in view of the action of the Supreme Court in granting writs of error in several instances where the rules have been flagrantly violated and assignments of error have not been considered because of such infractions. If fundamental error can be predicated on rejected assignments of error which require a scrutiny of the facts, this court is in no position to enforce rules. In the case of Harlingen Land & Water Co. v. Houston Motor Co. (Civ. App.) 160 S. W. 628, there was .but one assignment of error, which in no wise complied with rule or statute, and this court refused to go into the statement of facts to discover errors not indicated in any manner. The Supreme Court granted a writ because a fundamental error had been discovered in the facts This in the face of the declaration in Houston Oil Co. v. Kimball, 103 Tex. 95, 122 S. W. 533, 124 S. W. 85, that fundamental error does not mean an error “which can be ascertained by looking into the record and considering the evidence.” Another writ has just been granted - in which this court attempted an enforcement of rule 62a (149 S. W. x). Peden Iron & Steel Co. v. Jaimes (Civ. App.) 162 S. W. 965. The assignments in this case were all directed to one point, the action of the court in sustaining exceptions to the petition. It was not necessary to name a certain assignment that was sustained. It was sufficient to hold, as we did, that the petition alleged a ease that should, if sustained by facts, have been submitted to the jury.
[3] The measure of damages in this case is the amount paid by appellant for the land. *3which lie failed to get. The value of the deficit was $1,200, and to that sum he is entitled, regardless of the increased value of the other land.
The motion is overruled.