Barron & Clark v. White

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Citation: Barron & Clark v. White, 155 S.W. 590 (Tex. App. 1913)
• Decision Date: 13 March 1913
• Writing for the Court: Harper
• Parties: BARRON & CLARK v. WHITE et al.

155 S.W. 590

BARRON & CLARK v. WHITE et al.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

March 13, 1913.

Rehearing Denied April 3, 1913.

Appeal from Martin County Court; J. Turner Vance, Judge.

Action by T. M. White against Barron & Clark and others. Judgment for plaintiff as against Barron & Clark, and they appeal. Affirmed.

J. M. Caldwell, of Midland, and E. M. Whitaker, of El Paso, for appellants. Chas. Gibbs, of Midland, G. B. Smedley, of Austin, Jno. B. Howard, of Midland, and S. P. Weisiger, of El Paso, for appellees.

HARPER, C. J.

T. M. White, appellee, brought this suit in the justice court of precinct No. 1, Midland county, against Barron & Clark and J. H. Barron and Will Clark, individually, and in the alternative against A. C. Parker, to recover two months' rent of a building which he alleged was due under the terms of a lease by plaintiff to Morris J. Lynch, dated August 1, 1909. Plaintiff alleged that Lynch sold said lease contract to Parker; that Parker assumed the payment of the rent; that Parker in turn sold to Barron & Clark; and that this firm in turn assumed the payments for rent. Defendant Parker pleaded general denial, and Barron & Clark specially denied assuming the payments for rent under the lease contract, and alleged that the only contract they had was a verbal one from month to month, at $60 per month, which was terminated by vacating the building November 15, 1910. Tried before jury, and judgment for plaintiff for $120 against Barron & Clark and J. H. Barron and Will Clark, individually, jointly and severally, with interest and costs, and that A. C. Parker, J. Hunter Clark, and R. Y. Barron go hence without day and recover their costs. Barron & Clark appealed to the county court of Midland county, and upon motion the venue was changed by the county court to the county court of Martin county. Judgment for same amount in trial court, from which this appeal is perfected.

The appellants' fourth and fifth assignments of error are grouped together and followed by several separate propositions, and only one statement in the brief of plaintiff in error and defendant in error objects to our considering these assignments as in violation of rules 25 (142 S. W. xii) and 31 (142 S. W. xiii) for this court. The fourth and fifth assignments are as follows, to wit: Fourth assignment of error: "The court erred in sustaining the motion of plaintiff T. M. White to change the venue of this cause to Martin county." Fifth assignment of error: "The court erred in overruling the motion to remand said cause from Martin county, Tex., to Midland county, Tex."

It is permissible to group assignments which relate to the same subject, although not commendable; but when they are such as to permit grouping, each should be supported by its own proposition. Rule 31, Court of Civil Appeals; Mutual Life Ins. Co....