Roberts v. Williford
Citation | 242 S.W. 797 |
Decision Date | 08 June 1922 |
Docket Number | (No. 836.) |
Parties | ROBERTS et al. v. WILLIFORD. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; W. E. Monteith, Judge.
Suit by Mrs. Johnnie Alice Roberts and another against Frank Williford, Jr. From an adverse judgment, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Elbert Roberts, of Houston, for appellants.
H. H. Cooper and Sam R. Merrill, both of Houston, for appellee.
O'QUINN, J.
This suit was brought by appellants in the Sixty-First district court of Harris county, Tex., to vacate and set aside a judgment rendered in said court in cause No. 88640, entitled Frank Williford, Jr., v. Austin Roberts et al. The following statement of the nature and result of the suit is taken from appellant's brief, to wit:
The case was tried before the court without a jury, and judgment rendered refusing to set aside the judgment, from which appellants appealed.
Appellants present two assignments of error, which are:
These assignments cannot be considered. They are too general, and not in compliance with the rules. Rules 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 for courts of civil appeals (142 S. W. xii); article 1612, Vernon's Sayles' Civil Statutes; Yoe v. Montgomery, 68 Tex. 338, 4 S. W. 622; Houston v. Blythe, 71 Tex. 719, 10 S. W. 520; Wilson v. Lucas, 78 Tex. 292, 14 S. W. 690; American Legion of Honor v. Rowell, 78 Tex. 677, 15 S. W. 217; Bonner v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thomas v. Thomas
...W. 217; Denby Motor Truck Co. v. Mears (Tex. Civ. App.) 229 S. W. 994; Bean v. Hinson (Tex. Civ. App.) 235 S. W. 327; Roberts v. Williford (Tex. Civ. App.) 242 S. W. 797; Chapman v. Reese (Tex. Civ. App.) 268 S. W. 969 (writ As this court said in Bean v. Hinson, supra: "Under the Texas appe......
-
Chapman v. Reese
...W. 645; Denby Motor Truck Co. v. Mears (Tex. Civ. App.) 229 S. W. 994; Bean v. Hinson (Tex. Civ. App.) 235 S. W. 327; Roberts v. Williford (Tex. Civ. App.) 242 S. W. 797. The third assignment "The court erred in concluding as a matter of law that the facts `that prior to the closing of the ......
-
Carrera v. Hines
...courts. The propositions, had there been an assignment filed, are too general and not in compliance with the rules. Roberts v. Williford (Tex. Civ. App.) 242 S. W. 797, and the rules and cases there referred While the above article of the statute, and the rule of the Supreme Court providing......
-
Threadgill v. Threadgill, 3344.
...These assignments are too general. They point to no specific error. Ackerman v. Huff, 71 Tex. 317, 319, 9 S.W. 236; Roberts v. Williford, Tex.Civ.App., 242 S.W. 797. We have carefully examined the record, and find no fundamental error. The pleadings were sufficient. No complaint is made of ......