Heath v. Huffhines
Decision Date | 02 May 1914 |
Docket Number | (No. 7936.) |
Parties | HEATH v. HUFFHINES. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Johnson County Court; O. L. Lockett, Judge.
Action by W. C. Huffhines against E. N. Heath. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
See, also, 152 S. W. 176.
R. S. Phillips and H. P. Brown, both of Cleburne, for appellant. Walker & Baker and S. C. Padelford, all of Cleburne, for appellee.
This is a suit by appellee to recover a balance of $550 alleged to be due as commissions for the sale of certain lands owned by appellant. The undisputed evidence shows that the sale negotiated by appellee was not finally consummated, and on a former appeal we reversed a judgment in appellee's favor because of error in failing to submit the issue tendered by appellant that by the terms of the agreement of the parties commissions were to be paid in event only that the sale should be fully completed by the payment of the specified consideration, the execution and acceptance of conveyance, etc. See Heath v. Huffhines, 152 S. W. 176, to which we refer for a statement of the case in greater detail.
On the present appeal the only assignments of error go to alleged errors in the charge of the court as given, and to the action of the court in refusing to give specified special charges requested. Appellee objects to the several assignments of error, on the ground that proper exceptions were not taken to the action of the court complained of, as required by legislative act approved March 29, 1913. See General Laws 1913, p. 113.
In an opinion handed down by this court on April 25, 1914, in the case of Taylor v. Butler (No. 7928) 168 S. W. 1004, in which it became necessary to determine a similar objection, we said:
The opinion...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stephenville, N. & S. T. Ry. Co. v. Wheat
...action of the court in refusing the special charges, as required by act approved March 29, 1913 (Gen. Laws, 1913, p. 113). See Heath v. Huffhines, 168 S. W. 974; Railway Co. v. Wadsack, 166 S. W. 42; Mut. Life Ass'n v. Rhoderick, 164 S. W. 1067; Railway Co. v. Tomlinson, 169 S. W. We are of......
-
International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Bartek
...165 S. W. 900; Railway Co. v. Wadsak, 166 S. W. 43; Railway Co. v. Culver, 168 S. W. 515; Railway Co. v. Brown, 168 S. W. 869; Heath v. Huffhines, 168 S. W. 974; Railway Co. v. Barnes, 168 S. W. 992; Railway Co. v. Tomlinson, 169 S. W. 218; Railway Co. v. Eldridge, 169 S. W. 376; Railway Co......
-
Hill v. Staats
...was made to the action of the court in refusing a special instruction. See Mutual Life Ins. Ass'n v. Rhoderick, 164 S. W. 1067; Heath v. Huffhines, 168 S. W. 974; St. L. & S. W. Ry. Co. v. Wadsack, 166 S. W. 42; T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Tomlinson, 169 S. W. 217; Cleburne Street Ry. Co. v. Barnes,......
-
Staples v. State
...be evidenced by a bill of exceptions approved by the trial judge. Eldridge v. Citizens' Ry. Co. (Civ. App.) 169 S. W. 375; Heath v. Huffhines (Civ. App.) 168 S. W. 974; Gulf, T. & W. Ry. Co. v. Culver (Civ. App.) 168 S. W. 514; Ford Motor Co. v. Freeman et al. (Civ. App.) 168 S. W. 82; St. ......