assigned error in Texas

2009See Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. APCC Services, Inc., — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2531, 2541-43 , 171 L.Ed.2d 424 (2008) (as-signee for collection may properly sue on the assigned claim); Cartwright v. MBank Corpus Christi, N.A., 865 S.W.2d 546, 549 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied) (assignee, who pled that it was a holder of the note and entitled to sue on it, was entitled to sue to collect on the note); Schultz v. Aetna Business Credit, Inc., 540 S.W.2d 530, 532 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1976, no writ) (instrument of assignment, which transferred to assignee of promissory note the ri

2009App.–San Antonio 1976, no writ) (instrument of assignment, which transferred to assignee of promissory note the right to collect installments and to take all proceedings as might have been taken by assignor “[a]gainst all other parties, other than the Buyer” and which stated that assignor guaranteed payment without insisting that assignee “first . . . proceed against Buyer,” gave assignee the right to sue “Buyers” who executed the note); Kelley v. Bluff Creek Oil Co., 298 S.W.2d 263 (Tex. Civ.

2019Id.

2019Id.

1932There is no merit in the position.” In Thompson v. State, 34 Texas Crim.

1932There is no merit in the position.” In Thompson v. State, 34 Tex. Cr.

1932Rep., 312 , 26 S. W., 411 , Judge Davidson said: “The judgment nisi was entered against the parties severally, and this is assigned as error.

1932R. 312 , 26 S. W. 411 , Judge Davidson said: “The judgment nisi was entered against the parties severally, and this is assigned as error.

2009See Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. APCC Services, Inc., — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2531, 2541-43 , 171 L.Ed.2d 424 (2008) (as-signee for collection may properly sue on the assigned claim); Cartwright v. MBank Corpus Christi, N.A., 865 S.W.2d 546, 549 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied) (assignee, who pled that it was a holder of the note and entitled to sue on it, was entitled to sue to collect on the note); Schultz v. Aetna Business Credit, Inc., 540 S.W.2d 530, 532 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1976, no writ) (instrument of assignment, which transferred to assignee of promissory note the ri

2009See Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. APCC Services, Inc., — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2531, 2541-43 , 171 L.Ed.2d 424 (2008) (as-signee for collection may properly sue on the assigned claim); Cartwright v. MBank Corpus Christi, N.A., 865 S.W.2d 546, 549 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied) (assignee, who pled that it was a holder of the note and entitled to sue on it, was entitled to sue to collect on the note); Schultz v. Aetna Business Credit, Inc., 540 S.W.2d 530, 532 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1976, no writ) (instrument of assignment, which transferred to assignee of promissory note the ri

1998Suing on an assigned claim would provide one such method of retaliation.” Booth, 895 S.W.2d at 770 .

1996See Elbaor , 845 S.W.2d at 243 ; Sterner , 767 S.W.2d at 690 ; Mechura Farms , 875 S.W.2d at 364 .

1996See Elbaor , 845 S.W.2d at 243 ; Sterner , 767 S.W.2d at 690 ; Mechura Farms , 875 S.W.2d at 364 .

1996See Elbaor , 845 S.W.2d at 243 ; Sterner , 767 S.W.2d at 690 ; Mechura Farms , 875 S.W.2d at 364 .

1996See Elbaor , 845 S.W.2d at 243 ; Sterner , 767 S.W.2d at 690 ; Mechura Farms , 875 S.W.2d at 364 .

1977To plead guilty or not guilty; to have a jury or non-jury trial; and to take the stand or not. ‘The ideal and goal, according to Judge Burger, is to establish a system in which the assigned defense counsel will be indistinguishable from the retained defense counsel in skill, as well as manners.’ ” (Citation omitted) Landers , therefore, is consistent with our opinion in Webb v. State, 533 S.W.2d 780 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), where we reaffirmed the rule that a defendant does not have the right to be both represented by counsel and also propound his own questions to witnesses as well as make jury argu

1973Rule 324, T.R.C.P.; Milam v. *940 Cooper Co., Inc., 258 S.W.2d 953 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1953, writ ref., n. r. e.) ; First National Life Ins.

1950A formal statement of facts is not essential to a reviéw of judgment on the merits, when all the facts necessary to a determination of the assigned error other wise appear in the record, e. g., by bill of exceptions, recitals of judgment, etc. Salinas v. Wright, 11 Tex. 572 ; Weslaco Independent School District v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., Tex.Civ.App., 7 S.W.2d 911 ; Jacobson v. Jacobson, Tex.Civ.App., 88 S.W.2d 515 .

1950A formal statement of facts is not essential to a review of judgment on the merits, when all the facts necessary to a determination of the assigned error otherwise *755 appear in the record, e. g., by bill of exceptions, recitals of judgment, etc. Salinas v. Wright, 11 Tex. 572 ; Weslaco Independent School District v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., Tex.Civ.App., 7 S.W.2d 911 ; Jacobson v. Jacobson, Tex.Civ.App., 88 S.W.2d 515 .

1950A formal statement of facts is not essential to a reviéw of judgment on the merits, when all the facts necessary to a determination of the assigned error other wise appear in the record, e. g., by bill of exceptions, recitals of judgment, etc. Salinas v. Wright, 11 Tex. 572 ; Weslaco Independent School District v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., Tex.Civ.App., 7 S.W.2d 911 ; Jacobson v. Jacobson, Tex.Civ.App., 88 S.W.2d 515 .

1950A formal statement of facts is not essential to a review of judgment on the merits, when all the facts necessary to a determination of the assigned error otherwise *755 appear in the record, e. g., by bill of exceptions, recitals of judgment, etc. Salinas v. Wright, 11 Tex. 572 ; Weslaco Independent School District v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., Tex.Civ.App., 7 S.W.2d 911 ; Jacobson v. Jacobson, Tex.Civ.App., 88 S.W.2d 515 .

1950A formal statement of facts is not essential to a reviéw of judgment on the merits, when all the facts necessary to a determination of the assigned error other wise appear in the record, e. g., by bill of exceptions, recitals of judgment, etc. Salinas v. Wright, 11 Tex. 572 ; Weslaco Independent School District v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., Tex.Civ.App., 7 S.W.2d 911 ; Jacobson v. Jacobson, Tex.Civ.App., 88 S.W.2d 515 .

1950A formal statement of facts is not essential to a review of judgment on the merits, when all the facts necessary to a determination of the assigned error otherwise *755 appear in the record, e. g., by bill of exceptions, recitals of judgment, etc. Salinas v. Wright, 11 Tex. 572 ; Weslaco Independent School District v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., Tex.Civ.App., 7 S.W.2d 911 ; Jacobson v. Jacobson, Tex.Civ.App., 88 S.W.2d 515 .

1950Says the Court in Dickey’s Estate v. Houston Independent School District, Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W. 250 , 252: “It is insisted in the motion that in the absence of a statement of facts this court should not have undertaken to determine as it did that specified rulings of the trial court were erroneous, nor, if erroneous, that the errors operated to prejudice rights of appellant.

1950Says the Court in Dickey's Estate v. Houston Independent School District, Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W. 250 , 252: "It is insisted in the motion that in the absence of a statement of facts this court should not have undertaken to determine as it did that specified rulings of the trial court were erroneous, nor, if erroneous, that the errors operated to prejudice rights of appellant.

1948We overrule the assigned error under authority of West Texas Utility Co. v. Haynes, Tex.Civ.App., 20 S.W.2d 236 ; Cogdell v. Martin, Tex.Civ.App., 176 S.W.2d 982 ; Moore v. Moore, Tex.Civ.App., 177 S.W.Zd 998; Waters v. Yockey, Tex.Civ.App., 193 S.W.2d 575 .

1948We overrule the assigned error under authority of West Texas Utility Co. v. Haynes, Tex.Civ.App., 20 S.W.2d 236 ; Cogdell v. Martin, Tex.Civ.App., 176 S.W.2d 982 ; Moore v. Moore, Tex.Civ.App., 177 S.W.Zd 998; Waters v. Yockey, Tex.Civ.App., 193 S.W.2d 575 .

1948We overrule the assigned error under authority of West Texas Utility Co. v. Haynes, Tex.Civ.App., 20 S.W.2d 236 ; Cogdell v. Martin, Tex.Civ.App., 176 S.W.2d 982 ; Moore v. Moore, Tex.Civ.App., 177 S.W.Zd 998; Waters v. Yockey, Tex.Civ.App., 193 S.W.2d 575 .

1944Redman v. Cooper, Tex.Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d 318 .

1944Redman v. Cooper, Tex.Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d 318 .

1940Under the holding in Stillman v. Kirsch, 128 Tex. 359 , 99 S.W.2d 270 , and Central Power & Light Co. v. Heder, Tex.Civ.App., 133 S.W.2d 795 , this record will be reviewed for fundamental error, which will include the refusal of the court to instruct a verdict for the Corporation and, incidentally, the abstract statements of law presented in these propositions.

1940Under the holding in Stillman v. Kirsch, 128 Tex. 359 , 99 S.W.2d 270 , and Central Power & Light Co. v. Heder, Tex.Civ.App., 133 S.W.2d 795 , this record will be reviewed for fundamental error, which will include the refusal of the court to instruct a verdict for the Corporation and, incidentally, the abstract statements of law presented in these propositions.

1940Under the holding in Stillman v. Kirsch, 128 Tex. 359 , 99 S.W.2d 270 , and Central Power & Light Co. v. Heder, Tex.Civ.App., 133 S.W.2d 795 , this record will be reviewed for fundamental error, which will include the refusal of the court to instruct a verdict for the Corporation and, incidentally, the abstract statements of law presented in these propositions.

1936We had tliis identical question before us in the recent case of *377 Traders & General Insurance Co. v. Blancett, 96 S.W.(2d) 420, 425 , in which case an application for writ of error is pending-in the Supreme Court.

1933Co. v. Hamilton (Tex.Civ.App.) 37 S.W.2d 755 , is cited in support of the assignment.

1932Before leaving this subject, it may be well to notice the case of Harris County v. Campbell, 68 Tex. 22 , 8 S. W. 243 , 2 Am.

1932The first is presented by the following bill of exception, which was duly approved by the court, omitting formal parts, to wit: "Be it remembered that upon the trial of the above entitled and numbered cause on the 9th day of March, 1931, while the plaintiff Floyd Clark was testifying as a witness in his own behalf on redirect examination, and after he had testified that on the 12th day of January, 1928, while looking for a room in Jacksboro, Texas, he was injured in an automobile accident, and had also testified that he had been at work for the Company near Palo Pinto, Texas, on January 11th,