Southern Nat. Ins. Co. v. Wood

• Decision Date: 14 December 1910
• Citation: 133 S.W. 286
• Parties: SOUTHERN NAT. INS. CO. v. WOOD.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

133 S.W. 286

SOUTHERN NAT. INS. CO. v. WOOD.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

December 14, 1910.

Appeal from Washington County Court; W. R. Ewing, Judge.

Action by F. W. Wood against the Southern National Insurance Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Mathis, Buchanan & Stone, for appellant. W. W. Searcy, for appellee.

JENKINS, J.

This suit was brought by appellee to recover of appellant on an insurance policy for $600 on furniture and household goods, issued in favor of M. C. May and by her transferred to appellee, Wood. There is no contention that the insured was in any way responsible for the fire. The property destroyed consisted of such household and kitchen furniture as parlor and bedroom suites, chairs, stoves, tables, curtains, shades, pictures, lamps, matting, sideboard, books, bookcases, kitchen furniture, etc., and a piano, all of which had been used for from three to four years. M. C. May was a negress and a married woman, and, being unable to get a satisfactory settlement with the insurance company, she, with the consent of her husband, transferred the policy to appellee, Wood, a white man, under an agreement that, if he collected the policy without suit, he was to have $50 for his services, and, if by suit, he was to have $100. He was also to loan her $50 on said policy, if she needed it, which he did.

Appellee objects to the consideration of a number of the assignments of error made by appellant. We hold that the following assignments are not in compliance with the rules for the reasons herein stated, and consequently the same will not be considered, to wit: The third, fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth assignments of error begin as follows: "The court erred because the undisputed testimony shows," etc. The seventh assignment is as follows: "The court erred because G. T. May and M. C. May or neither of them are parties to this suit, and the evidence shows that the policy sued on is the community property of the said G. T. and M. C. May, husband and wife." The thirteenth assignment is as follows: "The court erred because by the terms and conditions of the policy," etc., setting out in said assignment what purports to be a clause of said policy in reference to any incumbrance on the property insured or any part thereof. It does not appear from either of said assignments in what the court erred; whether in its rulings as to the admission of evidence, in charges given or refused, in refusing a new trial, or in some other particular. Rule 24 (67 S. W. xv) provides that "the assignment of error must distinctly specify the ground of error relied on, and a ground of error not distinctly specified, in reference to that which is shown in the record, or not specified at all, shall be considered waived." Rule 25 declares: "To be a distinct specification of error, it must point out that part of the proceedings contained in the record in which the error is complained of in a particular manner, so as to identify it, whether it be the rulings of the court upon a motion, or upon any particular part of the pleadings, or upon the admission or rejection of evidence, or upon any other matter relating to the cause, or its trial, or the portion of the charge given or refused," etc.

The twentieth assignment is not followed by any statement of any character. The statements under the following assignments are insufficient in this: Second assignment is as to admitting in evidence a transfer of the policy to appellee. The only statement under this assignment is: "Bill of exceptions to the above evidence was properly presented. Tr. p. 36 & 37." By hunting it out in the record, we might ascertain whether or not the evidence complained of in the assignment was admitted, and, if so, what were the grounds of the objection thereto, and then by reading the entire record we might determine whether or not the wrongful admission, if any, of said evidence, probably affected the result of the trial, and was therefore reversible error; but none of these things are made to appear in the above statement.

The sixth assignment complains of the refusal of the court to give a requested charge. The only statement under this assignment is: "Same as under appellant's third, fourth, and fifth assignments of errors." By reference to the statements under these assignments, we find that certain witnesses testified to certain facts; but there is nothing in said statements showing that any charge was asked or refused.

The eighth assignment is as to the refusal of the court to give a special charge. The only statement under this assignment is: "Same as under seventh assignment of error." The statement under the seventh assignment makes no reference to any requested charge. The same applies to the eleventh and twelfth assignments of error. The only statement under the fourteenth and fifteenth assignments is: "The above requested charge is correctly set out."

The only statement under the...