Shipp v. Cartwright
| Decision Date | 12 November 1915 |
| Docket Number | (No. 6960.) |
| Citation | 182 S.W. 70 |
| Parties | SHIPP v. CARTWRIGHT et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Nacogdoches County; L. D. Guinn, Judge.
Action by J. C. Shipp against Leonidas Cartwright and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
June C. Harris, Audley Harris, and Geo. F. Ingraham, all of Nacogdoches, for appellant. Blount & Strong, of Nacogdoches, for appellees.
J. C. Shipp brought this suit against Leonidas Cartwright, R. T. Patterson, and M. S. Griffin to recover 100 acres of land, part of the J. W. Anderson survey, in Nacogdoches county. In addition to the ordinary allegations in suits of trespass to try title, plaintiff pleaded the statute of limitations of 10 years. The case was tried before a jury, and resulted in a verdict in response to special issues in favor of the defendants, upon which a judgment in defendants' favor was entered, and from which the plaintiff has appealed.
Appellant, by his first assignment of error, complains of the action of the court in setting aside a judgment rendered in his favor at a former term of court and granting to the defendants a new trial. If the action of a trial court in setting aside a judgment rendered at a former term could ever be reviewed at all, it could only be done upon a full statement, showing what issues were joined and what the evidence was on the former trial. The statement made by appellant under the assignment is wholly insufficient to authorize our consideration of the question presented.
The second assignment complains that the court erred in not disregarding the findings of the jury upon the special issues submitted, and in not rendering judgment in favor of plaintiff. The proposition advanced under the assignment in effect is that, where the answers of the jury to the special is, sues are contrary to law and the facts proved, it is the duty of the court to disregard such findings and to render judgment in accordance with law. This assignment, to require consideration by this court, should have been followed by a statement, showing, not only the special issues submitted and the answers of the jury thereto but all of the material evidence relied upon by the appellant to show that the jury's answers were not warranted by the facts, the only statement made by appellant in support of his assignment and proposition is as follows:
"The answer of the jury to the questions propounded by the court to them were not supported by the facts, and were clearly contrary to law; therefore it was the duty of the court to set aside the verdict and render judgment for the plaintiff."
Manifestly the statement is insufficient to require our consideration of the assignment, and we decline to consider it.
A consideration of all the other assignments presented by appellant in his brief is objected to by the appellees upon the ground that the assignments of error in the record have not been truly copied in the appellant's brief. A comparison of the assignments found in the record with those in the brief shows that they were not literally copied, but in some the substances only were stated, while in others some matters not contained in the original were added. Rule 29 for the Courts of Civil Appeals (142 S. W. xii) provides that:
"The appellant or plaintiff in error, in order to prepare properly a case for submission when called, shall have filed a brief of the points relied on in accordance with and confined to the distinct specifications of error (which assignments shall be copied in the brief) * * * and each assignment not so copied * * * shall be regarded as abandoned. * * *"
This rule has not been observed by the appellant in preparing this case for submission, and for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kian v. Kefalogiannis
...of "crassa negligentia which is said to be akin to fraud, and to carry with it many of its consequences." However, in Shipp Cartwright (Tex. Civ. App.), 182 S.W. 70, 71, the court held that it was error to have instructed the jury that they must find against the claim for improvements if th......
-
Kian v. Kefalogiannis
..." 'crassa negligentia' which is said to be akin to fraud, and to carry with it many of its consequences." However, in Shipp v. Cartwright (Tex. Civ. App.) 182 S. W. 70, 71, the court held that it was error to have instructed the jury that they must find against the claim for improve-merits ......
-
Burbidge v. Utah Light & Traction Co.
... ... damages, becomes immaterial in view of the jury's finding ... for the defendant." ... In ... Shipp v. Cartwright (Tex. Civ. App.) 182 ... S.W. 70, the rule is stated thus: ... "Where ... a jury find in favor of defendant, the ... ...
-
Turner v. Turner
...1913, p. 276; Vernon's Sayles' Statutes of 1914, art. 1612; Holloman v. Black, 188 S. W. 973; Cole v. K. of M., 188 S. W. 699; Shipp v. Cartwright, 182 S. W. 70; Overton v. K. of P., 163 S. W. 1053; Edwards v. Youngblood, 160 S. W. 288; Oil Co. v. Crawford, 184 S. W. 728; Hardy v. Lamb, 152......