Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Guisar
| Decision Date | 31 October 1894 |
| Docket Number | (No. 1,164.) |
| Citation | 27 S.W. 1045 |
| Parties | HOUSTON & T. C. RY. CO. v. GUISAR. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Travis county; James H. Robertson, Judge.
Appeal by the Houston & Texas Central Railway Company against Bidala Guisar. Appellee moves to strike out appellant's brief. Motion granted.
O. T. Holt, for appellant. Wheless & Harris, for appellee.
A motion is made in this case to strike out the brief of appellant, and dismiss the appeal, because the appellant, in presenting its case in its brief, has grouped all of its assignments of error. The brief of appellant contains about 50 pages of printed matter, and in it are presented 12 assignments of error, grouped near the beginning of the brief and each in the main contains and presents distinct questions, and do not relate to the same matter. The rules require that the assignments of error shall be copied in the brief of appellant, and we think that they also contemplate that the assignments of error shall be separately stated in the brief, and not all grouped, unless they relate to the same matter, or are so connected with each other that practically they present the same question. The primary object of these rules is to lessen the labor of this court, and to require that the questions at issue shall be so plainly stated in the brief of the parties as to clearly present the questions without obscurity, so as to save the court the labor of looking to the record, except in a case where it may be necessary or proper to do so. It was never contemplated under the present rules that the court should look into the record to ascertain the nature of the assignments; and, when the assignments are presented as they are in the brief in this case, the court would probably gain time and save labor by looking to the record, because it would be about as inconvenient to look back from a proposition at the end of a brief to the beginning to find the assignment to which it belongs. Assignments relating to the same question may be grouped, but those relating to different questions or matters should be separately presented, and each accompanied with appropriate propositions and statements. This has been expressly held by the supreme court in the case of Railway Co. v. Anderson, 82 Tex. 517-521, 17 S. W. 1039.
The motion to strike out the brief is granted, and the case will be dismissed, unless a brief in accord with the rules is filed in this cause within 60 days from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mashburn v. St. Joe Improvement Co.
... ... separately stated and each accompanied with appropriate ... propositions and statements. ( People v. Page, 1 ... Idaho 102; Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Guisar (Tex. Civ ... App.), 27 S.W. 1045; Powers v. Kindt, 13 Kan ... 74; Whyte v. Rosencrantz, 123 Cal. 634, 69 Am. St ... ...
-
Hanrick v. Gurley
...inclined to think that this objection ought to be sustained, but we have concluded to consider the assignments. See Railway Co. v. Guisar (Tex. Civ. App.) 27 S. W. 1045. Appellant first presents his sixth assignment of error. We have duly considered the same, and we failed to see how he was......
-
State Nat. Bank of Vernon v. Waxahachie Nat. Bank
...waived all errors not "distinctly specified." Rev. St. art. 1037; Railway Co. v. Anderson, 82 Tex. 516, 17 S. W. 1039; Railway Co. v. Guisar (Tex. Civ. App.) 27 S. W. 1045. Recognizing the binding force of that statute, we decline to consider 2. The contention of the second and only remaini......
-
Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Poras
...granted. O. T. Holt, for appellants. Wheless & Harris, for appellees. FISHER, C. J. For the reasons stated in cause No. 1,164 (Railway Co. v. Guisar, 27 S. W. 1045), the same order will be made in this case as made in No. ...