Peacock v. Moore
| Decision Date | 24 February 1910 |
| Citation | 125 S.W. 943 |
| Parties | PEACOCK v. MOORE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Bowie County Court; Joe Hughes, Judge.
Action by Wesley Peacock against Mrs. S. L. Moore. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Appellant, who was the plaintiff below, alleged in his petition that about September 8, 1908, at the special instance and request of appellee, he entered as pupils in his school two of her minor sons "for the full term of school for the years 1908 and 1909, for which defendant promised to pay plaintiff the sum of $750; that in pursuance of said contract and agreement defendant sent her two minor sons until about the Christmas holidays, when, without his knowledge or consent, she withdrew her two sons from said school, and has since said time failed and refused to return them or either of them to school as she was obligated to do." He further alleged that in compliance with her contract appellee had paid him $375 of the $750, but had refused to pay the remainder thereof, to wit, the sum of $375, which he sought by his suit to recover. Appellee answered by a general denial, and specially set up as a defense certain matters which need not be stated. From a judgment in appellee's favor, appellant prosecutes this appeal.
A. C. Tisdale, for appellant. R. P. Dorough and Smelser & Vaughan, for appellee.
WILLSON, C. J. (after stating the facts as above).
Article 1018, Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1897, is as follows: "The appellant or plaintiff in error shall in all cases file with the clerk of the court below all assignments of error, distinctly specifying the grounds on which he relies, before he takes the transcript of the record from the clerk's office; all errors not distinctly specified are waived." So far as it need be quoted, article 1415 of said statutes is as follows: "The transcript" on appeal "shall, in all cases, contain" the "assignment of errors or such of them as there may be." In the transcript on this appeal there is no assignment of errors. In this condition of the record, we are not authorized to consider assignments presented in appellant's brief.
Having inspected the record, and finding no error apparent on the face thereof requiring a reversal of the judgment, necessarily we must affirm it. Bopp v. Granzer, 26 S. W. 445; Durham v. Garrett, 121 S. W. 1141.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Neal v. Allison
...and brought up in the transcript, as required by articles 1844 and 2281, R. C. S. 1925, and hence cannot be considered. Peacock v. Moore (Tex. Civ. App.) 125 S. W. 943; Ætna Accident & Liability Co. v. Trustees of First Christian Church (Tex. Civ. App.) 218 S. W. 537. But it may be said tha......
-
English v. Allen
...reversal of the judgment. Therefore it is affirmed. Vernon's Statutes, arts. 1607, 1612, 2113; Keyser v. Willman, 30 S. W. 504; Peacock v. Moore, 125 S. W. 943. ...
-
Moody v. First Nat. Bank of Aransas Pass
...law filed by the trial court, but such assignments of error do not appear in the transcript, and therefore cannot be considered. Peacock v. Moore, 125 S. W. 943; English v. Allen, 173 S. W. No fundamental error appearing, the judgment must be affirmed. ...