Court Opinion

ID: 9828230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:13:28.301017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:46.121637
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Complaint is made of what is termed an inaccuracy in our opinion. It is urged that “no complaint was made of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of the jury as to the amount of finished work,” and that it was also inaccurate to say that “no complaint was made of the verdict on the ground that it evidences misconduct or prejudice on the part of the jury.” It is asserted that “both of these grounds were called to the attention of the trial court, and they were both incorporated into the assignments of error in this court.”
The brief of counsel incorporates, after the opening statement of the case, six assignments of error. The first is that—
“The court erred in overruling and in failing to sustain defendant’s motion to strike out the deposition of the witness J. T. Lantry for the reasons set forth in defendant’s bill of exception No. 1.”
The second is that—
“The court erred in refusing to s.et aside the verdict of the jury for the reason that there was no testimony adduced on the trial of the cause upon which the answer of the jury to special issue No. 1 could have been based.”
But two propositions were presented in the brief. Those are the propositions discussed in our opinion. While some of the following assignments may be construed as questioning the sufficiency of the verdict to support a finding of 145,740 feet of completed line and “that the jury was wrongfully prejudiced against defendant in that it found that an amount of finished work had been done on the job by plaintiffs far in excess of that claimed by plaintiffs,” yet neither statements nor propositions follow these assignments in appellant’s brief. So that, we think we were entirely accurate, as presented to us for determination, in stating that—
“It was not contended that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding of the full number of completed feet alleged by the plaintiff, * * * nor is any complaint made of the verdict on the ground that it evidences misconduct or prejudice on the part of the jury.”
[3] As we understand the rules of briefing in this court, assignments of error not followed by appropriate propositions and statements from the record in support thereof are to be regarded as abandoned and not before us for consideration unless embodying fundamental error. See Neal v. Ry. Co., 37 Tex. Civ. App. 235, 83 S. W. 402; Insurance Co. v. Ford, 61 Tex. Civ. App. 412, 130 S. W. 769; Willis. v. Hatfield, 63 Tex. Civ. App. 582, 133 S. W. 929; Cooper v. Hiner, 91 Tex. 658, 45 S. W. 554.
In other respects we find nothing requiring additional discussion or that has changed our views as originally expressed.
Motion for rehearing will, accordingly, be overruled.