Clements v. Hearne
| Decision Date | 01 January 1876 |
| Citation | 45 Tex. 415 |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Parties | W. M. CLEMENTS v. THOMAS B. HEARNE & WIFE. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Lamar. Tried below before the Hon. John C. Easton.
V. W. Hale, for appellant, in an elaborate brief, discussed the merits of the questions litigated.
W. B. Wright, also for appellant.
Walton, Green & Hill, for appellees.
The errors assigned for the reversal of this case are--
“1st. The court erred in its general charge to the jury.
2d. The court erred in giving the instructions asked by plaintiff's counsel, and in refusing the instructions asked by defendants' counsel.
3d. The court erred in overruling defendants' motion for a new trial.”
The grounds for a new trial, as shown by the motion, are--
“1st. The court erred in its charge to the jury.
2d. The court erred in giving the instructions asked by plaintiff's counsel.
3d. The court erred in refusing the special instructions asked by defendants' counsel. 4th. The verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence, and inequitable.”
The object and purpose of an assignment of errors, as has been often said, is to point to the specific error claimed to have been committed by the court below, for which the judgment should be reversed, so as to obviate the necessity of the discussion by the opposite party, and the examination by the court of all the questions which may have been raised on the trial of the case in the lower court or suggested by the record, in which it can be supposed that there can be any error. To require the appellee or the court to hunt through the record for every conceivable error which the court below may have committed, when none has been pointed out by the party complaining of the judgment, would obviously be unreasonable and oppressive on the party recovering judgment, and most burthensome on this court, unnecessarily impeding the progress of its business; and by the confusion and uncertainty which it would beget as to the questions on which the case was decided in the court below, destroy its character as an appellate tribunal; and by the multiplicity of the questions for discussion, tend much more to confusion and error in its own decisions than the correction of errors which may in fact have occurred in the District Court. An assignment of errors, to serve the purpose intended by the statute, must unquestionably state the principle or rule of law violated in the court below for which the judgment should be reversed, or indicate it by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Fenner, Beane & Ungerleider
...rely for reversing the judgment. Fisk v. Wilson, 15 Tex. 430, 435; Byrnes v. Morris, 53 Tex. 213; Legon v. Withee, 25 Tex. 350; Clements v. Hearne, 45 Tex. 415; Randall v. Carlisle, 59 Tex. 69. It is no less certainly one of the functions of an assignment of error to apprise the adverse par......
-
Virginia Retirement System v. Cirillo, Record No. 2119-08-1.
...v. Commonwealth, 134 Va. 574, 579-80, 113 S.E. 853, 854 (1922), the then Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals quoted from Clements v. Hearne, 45 Tex. 415 (1876), as follows: "`To require the appellee or the court to hunt through the record for every conceivable error which the court below may ......
-
Commonwealth v. Herring
...errors which may in fact have occurred in the [lower court].”First Nat'l Bank, 106 Va. at 341–42, 56 S.E. at 163 (quoting Clements v. Hearne, 45 Tex. 415, 416 (1876)). Consequently, it is the duty of an appellant's counsel “to ‘lay his finger on the error’ in his [assignment of error],” Car......
-
Puckett v. Commonwealth
...points plaintiff's coun sel intends to ask a reversal of the judgment or decree, and to limit discussion to those points." And Clements v. Hearne, 45 Tex. 415, in which this is said: "To require the appellee or the court to hunt through the record for every conceivable error which the court......