number of assignments error in Texas

1968The complaint is that the allegations are “immaterial, prejudicial and inflammatory.” We overrule these assignments on the authority of Kelly v. Wright, 144 Tex. 114 , 188 S.W.2d 983 , where it was held that such exceptions are nothing more than a general demurrer and violate Rules 90 and 91, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

1968The complaint is that the allegations are “immaterial, prejudicial and inflammatory.” We overrule these assignments on the authority of Kelly v. Wright, 144 Tex. 114 , 188 S.W.2d 983 , where it was held that such exceptions are nothing more than a general demurrer and violate Rules 90 and 91, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

1950Manzer v. Barnes, 213 S.W.2d 464 , in which the case was reversed and remanded.

1939In a similar situation presented in Allison v. Campbell, Tex.Civ.App., 35 S.W.2d 776, 777 , the Waco Court correctly stated the rule, with citation of authorities, as follows: “Our courts uniformly hold that a party cannot present, under one general proposition, a number of assignments of error presenting entirely different and disconnected matters.

1932Snyder appealed, and presented a number of assignments of error, the Court of Civil Appeals sustained the assignment of error relating to the action of the trial court in overruling the general exception to the plaintiff’s petition, and reversed the judgment of the trial court, without discussing any of the other assignments of error presented by Snyder. 34 S.W.(2d) 918 .

1930In the case of Al Parker Securities Co. et al. v. Owen, 1 S.W.(2d) 271, 272 , the Commission of Appeals says: “A number of assignments of error are presented, but they are all embraced within the contentions: hirst, that defendant in error was bound by his compromise and settlement of June 12,1924, the contention being that defendant in error made such compromise and settlement after a full knowledge of all the facts, or at least of such facts as would, as matter of law, put a man of ordinary prudence upon inquiry, and that proper diligence would have resulted in a discovery of all the facts a

1929It is claimed on the authority of Rutherford v. Selover, 87 Minn. 495 , 92 N. W. 413 , that such evidence was simply hearsay, and therefore not admissible.

1929It is claimed on the authority of Rutherford v. Selover, 87 Minn. 495 , 92 N. W. 413 , that such evidence was simply hearsay, and therefore not admissible.

1926Our views on this question were expressed in the case of West Louisiana Bank v. Terry, 229 S. W. 639 .

1917As said by the Supreme Court in the case of Houston Oil Company of Texas v. Kimball, 103 Tex. 106, 122 S. W. 533 , 124 S. W. 85 , this objection was urged and raised by a number of assignments of error.

1917Peacock v. Moore, 125 S. W. 943 ; English v. Allen, 173 S. W. 1172 .

1917As said by the Supreme Court in the case of Houston Oil Company of Texas v. Kimball, 103 Tex. 106, 122 S. W. 533 , 124 S. W. 85 , this objection was urged and raised by a number of assignments of error.

1917Peacock v. Moore, 125 S. W. 943 ; English v. Allen, 173 S. W. 1172 .