Jennings-Progress C. S. Dist. No. 106 v. Marvin S. Dist. No. 14, 4073.

• Decision Date: 22 October 1931
• Docket Number: No. 4073.,4073.
• Citation: 42 S.W.2d 805
• Parties: JENNINGS-PROGRESS COMMON SCHOOL DIST. NO. 106 v. MARVIN SCHOOL DIST. NO. 14.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 805

42 S.W.2d 805

JENNINGS-PROGRESS COMMON SCHOOL DIST. NO. 106 v. MARVIN SCHOOL DIST. NO. 14.

No. 4073.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana

October 22, 1931.

Rehearing Denied October 29, 1931.

Appeal from District Court, Lamar County; Newman Phillips, Judge.

Suit by the Jennings-Progress Common School District No. 106 against the Marvin School District No. 14. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

The suit was by the appellant school district No. 106, in Lamar county, against the appellee school district No. 14 and Tollett common school district No. 103, in the same county. It was dismissed so far as it was against said district No. 103. As tried, the suit was to establish the North boundary line of said district No. 106 and South boundary line of said district No. 14, and in that way ascertain in which one of said districts land belonging to one Jim (J. W.) Stell was situated. The jury, in conformity to a peremptory instruction by the court to them to do so, found that the Stell land was in said school district No. 14. The appeal is from a judgment so determining and purporting to establish boundary lines of said districts.

Tom L. Beauchamp and A. P. Dohoney, both of Paris, for appellant.

Edgar Wright, of Paris, for appellee.

WILLSON, C. J. (after stating the case as above).

Appellant's brief does not contain an "assignment of errors," nor does it contain a copy of their motion for a new trial filed in the court below. But it does contain nine "propositions" which, it is asserted in the brief, are "based (quoting) on the assignments of error in the amended motion for a new trial."

In disposing this day of the appeal in Lamar-Delta County Improvement District No. 2 v. Dunn, this court held that, in the absence of an assignment of errors in an appellant's brief, it was restricted by force of the Act of April 9, 1931 (General Laws 1931, c. 45, p. 68 [Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. art. 1757]) amending article 1757, R. S. 1925, just as it was by rules promulgated by the Supreme Court before the passage of that act, to a consideration on an appeal of only errors apparent upon the face of the record.

Appellant insists that several of the propositions in its brief embody the requisites of, and therefore should be treated as, assignments of error. It may be they do embody such requisites, or at least some of same, but we do not think the law or the rules contemplate that time of an appellate court should be devoted to the matter of determining whether what an appellant has designated and treated as "propositions" in a brief might not also be treated as an assignment of errors. Whether a given proposition should be so treated or not in many instances would present a doubtful question. When it is remembered that briefs of an appellant sometimes contain more that 100 "propositions" it is plain, we think, that the burden of determining whether any of them should be...