Reed v. Murphy

Decision Date25 June 1925
Docket Number(No. 107.)
Citation276 S.W. 951
PartiesREED et al. v. MURPHY.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; Royall R. Watkins, Special Judge.

Action by M. Murphy against Fred E. Reed and others. From an adverse judgment, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Johnston & Hughes, of Waco, for appellants.

Burgess, Burgess, Sadler, Chrestman & Brundidge, of Dallas, for appellee.

EASON, Special Judge.

This suit was instituted by M. Murphy, a general insurance agent of Dallas, Tex., against Fred E. Reed and W. C. Linder, local insurance agents of Waco, Tex., and the sureties on their bond. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and the court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellants excepted to the judgment of the court, and caused the exception to be noted of record in the judgment entry. The appellee contends that this exception is not sufficient to authorize this court to review the judgment of the trial court, and urges that a bill of exception should have been taken to the findings of fact and conclusions of law. We cannot sustain this contention. Hess v. Turney, 109 Tex. 209, 203 S. W. 593; Lieber v. Nicholson (Tex. Com. App.) 206 S. W. 512; Temple v. Lindholm (Tex. Com. App.) 231 S. W. 321.

The appellants present eight assignments of error. They challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment, but none of them challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of fact. The appellee contends that the findings of fact of the trial court, when not challenged by assignments of error, are binding on this court. We sustain this contention. Babcock v. Glover (Tex. Civ. App.) 174 S. W. 713; Stockton v. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.) 175 S. W. 859; Lovelady v. County Board (Tex. Civ. App.) 214 S. W. 623; Illinois v. Ryan (Tex. Civ. App.) 214 S. W. 645; Desdemona v. Tyler (Tex. Civ. App.) 250 S. W. 744; Hines v. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 228 S. W. 671; Dallam County v. Supply Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 176 S. W. 802; Prairie Cattle Co. v. Balfour (Tex. Civ. App.) 146 S. W. 675; Old River Lumber Co. v. Skeeters (Tex. Civ. App.) 140 S. W. 512; Dalhart v. LeMaster, 62 Tex. Civ. App. 579, 132 S. W. 862; London v. Beaumont (Tex. Civ. App.) 139 S. W. 895; Supreme Council v. Storey (Tex. Civ. App.) 75 S. W. 905; Galveston v. Reitz, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 411, 65 S. W. 1089.

The findings of fact are sufficient to support the judgment of the trial court, and there is evidence to support these...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Hardwicke v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 1482.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 20 Septiembre 1935
    ...S.W. 593; Voight v. Mackle, 71 Tex. 78, 8 S. W. 623; Temple Hill Development Co. v. Lindholm (Tex.Com.App.) 231 S.W. 321; Reed v. Murphy (Tex.Civ.App.) 276 S.W. 951; Edwards v. Youngblood (Tex.Civ.App.) 160 S.W. 288; Arlington Heights Realty Co. v. Citizens' Ry. & Light Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 1......
  • Earnest v. Earnest
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 26 Septiembre 1949
    ...Voight et al. v. Mackle, 71 Tex. 78, 8 S.W. 623; Johnson et al. v. Masterson Irr. Co., Tex. Civ.App., 217 S.W. 407; Reed et al. v. Murphy, Tex.Civ.App., 276 S.W. 951; Weir v. King, Tex.Civ.App., 166 S.W.2d In attacking the court's judgment the appellant contends that all of the property bef......
  • Brazell v. Gault
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 23 Marzo 1942
    ...are not challenged in this court by assignment of error or otherwise. The findings are therefore binding on this Court. Reed et al. v. Murphy, Tex.Civ. App., 276 S.W. 951; Edson & Hamm, Inc., v. Murray, Tex.Civ.App., 285 S.W. 659; Dalton v. Davis et al., Tex.Civ.App., 294 S.W. 1115; Johnson......
  • Weir v. King
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 30 Octubre 1942
    ...this proposition, see Voight v. Mackle, 71 Tex. 78, 8 S.W. 623; Johnson v. Masterson Irr. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 217 S. W. 407; Reed v. Murphy, Tex.Civ.App., 276 S.W. 951; 3 Tex.Jur., p. 245, Sec. 162, and p. 594, Sec. The main contention in support of the judgment is that, in view of a separat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT