Byrne v. Texas Lumber & Loan Co.
| Citation | 198 S.W. 600 |
| Decision Date | 25 October 1917 |
| Docket Number | (No. 1833.) |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
| Parties | BYRNE et ux. v. TEXAS LUMBER & LOAN CO. |
Action by the Texas Lumber & Loan Company against G. H. Byrne and wife. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.
D. C. Woods, of Waco, for plaintiffs in error. E. M. Mann, of Mart, for defendant in error.
The assignments are predicated upon the action of the trial court in peremptorily charging the jury to find in favor of defendant in error against plaintiffs in error, who were the defendants in that court. As it does not appear from anything in the record we are authorized to consider that plaintiffs in error presented to said court the objection they urge to the charge, before same was read to the jury, they are in the attitude of having waived the objection and are not entitled to have their assignments considered here. Article 1971, Vernon's Statutes; Railway Co. v. Wadsack, 166 S. W. 42; Railway Co. v. Brown, 168 S. W. 867; Heath v. Huffhines, 168 S. W. 974; Railway Co. v. Crutchfield, 165 S. W. 551; Johnson v. Hoover, 165 S. W. 900; Case Cutlery Co. v. Folsom, 170 S. W. 1066; Williams v. Phelps, 171 S. W. 100; Railway Co. v. Chumbley, 169 S. W. 1107; Railway Co. v. Lewis, 176 S. W. 68. The bill in the record showing that plaintiffs in error objected to the charge was not filed until long after the time in which to file it allowed them by the court's order had expired, and for that reason cannot be considered. Canal v. Quinn, 160 S. W. 151; Criswell v. Robbins, 152 S. W. 210; Rishworth v. Moss, 191 S. W. 843. But had it been filed in time to entitle it to consideration, we would have to hold it to be insufficient because it fails to show that the objection was presented to the court before he read the charge to the jury. Railway Co. v. Sharpe, 167 S. W. 814; Fuller v. Commission Co., 174 S. W. 931; Railway Co. v. Fogleman, 172 S. W. 558.
The contention made, that the error (if it was one) of the trial court in peremptorily charging the jury to find for defendant in error was a fundamental one entitling plaintiffs in error to have the action of that court reviewed whether they objected to it or not, is overruled. This court and other Courts of Civil Appeals have repeatedly, and we think correctly, held to the contrary of the contention. Railway Co. v. Wilson, 176 S. W. 619; Railway Co. v. O'Bannon, 178 S. W. 731; McCall v. Roemer, 186 S. W. 409; Thorne v. Dashiell, 189 S. W. 986; Pearce v. Lodge, 190 S. W. 1156; Carr v. Bank, 189 S. W. 988; Strong v. Harwell, 185 S. W. 676; Ry. Co. v. Wheat, 173 S. W. 974; Gestean v. Bishop, 180 S. W. 302. The right of a litigant to appeal from a judgment against him and his right to a review by an appellate court of proceedings resulting in the judgment are statutory ones. The litigant is not in a position to demand such a review until he makes it appear in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial