Young v. Sorenson & Hooper

• Decision Date: 05 March 1913
• Citation: 154 S.W. 676
• Parties: YOUNG v. SORENSON & HOOPER.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

154 S.W. 676

YOUNG v. SORENSON & HOOPER.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

March 5, 1913.

Appeal from Aransas County Court; F. Stevens, Judge.

Action by Sorenson & Hooper against S. P. Young. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

W. H. Baldwin, of Rockport, for appellant. John B. Eddins, of Rockport, and Kleberg & Stayton, of Kingsville, for appellees.

MOURSUND, J.

Appellees sued appellant on October 20, 1911, in justice's court of precinct No. 1 of Aransas county for $134.28 due on account. November 27, 1911, appellant filed his written answer containing demurrer and special exceptions. November 27, 1911, plaintiffs filed their account, itemized, the items dated from January 1 to April 13, 1909, aggregating $134.28, and an item of 15 cents being dated March 17, 1910. Defendant filed demurrer, general denial, and specially pleaded the statutes of limitation of two years as to all items except the 15 cents, which he admitted owing. He also orally pleaded payment of said account. December 26, 1911, plaintiffs filed an amendment alleging that, defendant being a farmer and engaged in rural occupations, his account was not considered due until January 1, 1910. December 29, 1911, plaintiff recovered judgment in the justice's court for $150.45. After defendant appealed the case to the county court, plaintiffs on April 15, 1912, filed their first supplemental petition, to which defendant answered by demurrer, special exceptions, and oral plea of payment. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiffs for $150.45, and defendant appealed.

Appellee has interposed many objections to the consideration of the assignments of error presented by appellant; some based upon failure to comply with the amendments to the rules effective January 1 and 24, 1912, others based upon the rules as they have existed for years. It has not been the policy of this court to refuse to consider assignments filed in cases tried within a few months after January, 1912, as to the rules which took effect in said month; and we would not refuse to consider any of the assignments filed in this case for that reason alone. However, all the assignments, except the ninth, fail to comply with rule 31 (142 S. W. xiii). The consideration of such assignments would require a continual reference by this court to the transcript and the statement of facts. As violations of this rule are called to the attention of the bar in exceedingly numerous cases, we deem it unnecessary to describe and comment upon the same in detail, as has been done in appellees' brief.

We conclude that we should consider the ninth assignment, though it is not briefed strictly in accordance with the rules; yet, when the assignment, proposition, and statement are considered together, we are informed of the points sought to be made, and the statement, when aided by the assignment, is sufficient.

Said assignment No. 9 reads as follows: "The court erred in giving to the jury plaintiff's requested special charge No. 3, as follows: `If you find in this case that the minds of either of the plaintiffs and defendant met...