tenth assignment error in Texas

1940In Edgar v. State, 102 S. W. 439 , the court, in discussing the constitutional right of the Legislature to regulate the sale of liquor for medicinal purposes, gave this statement: “The tenth assignment of error, attacking the constitutionality of the act in question on the ground that the Legislature cannot license or regulate the sale of liquor for medicinal purposes in a local option district, is without merit.” The physician deals with the life, health, morals and comforts of the people.

1937Costley v. Gracy, supra. The ninth assignment of error complains that issue No. 3 should not have been submitted to the jury because there was no evidence as to what amount of money was allowed to appellant in the compromise settlement by reason of appellant’s pleading his guarantee to appellee, and the tenth assignment of error complains that the verdict of the jury on issue No. 3 is unsupported by any evidence.

1924Rep. 849 ; Williams v. Sapicha, 94 Tex. 430 , 61 S. W. 115 . [5] The tenth assignment of error complains of the definition used by the trial court as to the term “necessaries,” which is as follows: “The term ‘necessaries’ includes those things without which the individual cannot reasonably exist, and which are usdful and suitable and necessary for his support, use, and comfort, taking into consideration his state and condition in life.” This is the definition of “necessaries” for a case of this kind given in 22 Cyc. 592; but, if this definition should be held to be too restrictive under the fa

1924Rep. 849 ; Williams v. Sapicha, 94 Tex. 430 , 61 S. W. 115 . [5] The tenth assignment of error complains of the definition used by the trial court as to the term “necessaries,” which is as follows: “The term ‘necessaries’ includes those things without which the individual cannot reasonably exist, and which are usdful and suitable and necessary for his support, use, and comfort, taking into consideration his state and condition in life.” This is the definition of “necessaries” for a case of this kind given in 22 Cyc. 592; but, if this definition should be held to be too restrictive under the fa

1920Fisher v. Barber, 62 Tex. Civ.

1916(Sup.) 175 S. W. 1052 . [8] The tenth assignment of error is that the appellant’s motion for a new trial ought to have been granted, “because the answer of the jury to the fifteenth question submitted by the court, to the effect that a deed and abstract were not furnished within a reasonable time under the circumstances, is without evidence to support the finding.” There was no stipulation in the contract fixing the time of performance, and the rule is substantially as stated by appellant, namely, that in such case the law allows a reasonable time, and what is a reasonable time depends *530 up

1912App. 262 , 33 S. W. 1016 ; Eads v. City of Marshall, 29 S. W. 170 . [8] The tenth assignment of error complains at the action of the court in refusing-to givd in charge special instruction No. 3.

1912Poindexter v. Lumber Co., 101 Tex. 322 , 107 S. W. 42 ; Alamo Beef Co. v. Yeargen, 123 S. W. 721 ; Alamo Oil Co. v. Curvier, 136 S. W. 1132 . [8] Appellant does not claim that there was no evidence to sustain, the issue of the depression in the floor, but asserts that there was no “credible evidence,” a matter that was settled by the jury, to whom the right to judge of the credibility of witnesses is ■confided by the laws of Texas. [9] The tenth assignment of error is of the same import as the ninth, and questions the probative force of the testimony as to the depression in the floor.

1912Poindexter v. Lumber Co., 101 Tex. 322 , 107 S. W. 42 ; Alamo Beef Co. v. Yeargen, 123 S. W. 721 ; Alamo Oil Co. v. Curvier, 136 S. W. 1132 . [8] Appellant does not claim that there was no evidence to sustain, the issue of the depression in the floor, but asserts that there was no “credible evidence,” a matter that was settled by the jury, to whom the right to judge of the credibility of witnesses is ■confided by the laws of Texas. [9] The tenth assignment of error is of the same import as the ninth, and questions the probative force of the testimony as to the depression in the floor.

1912Poindexter v. Lumber Co., 101 Tex. 322 , 107 S. W. 42 ; Alamo Beef Co. v. Yeargen, 123 S. W. 721 ; Alamo Oil Co. v. Curvier, 136 S. W. 1132 . [8] Appellant does not claim that there was no evidence to sustain, the issue of the depression in the floor, but asserts that there was no “credible evidence,” a matter that was settled by the jury, to whom the right to judge of the credibility of witnesses is ■confided by the laws of Texas. [9] The tenth assignment of error is of the same import as the ninth, and questions the probative force of the testimony as to the depression in the floor.

1912Poindexter v. Lumber Co., 101 Tex. 322 , 107 S. W. 42 ; Alamo Beef Co. v. Yeargen, 123 S. W. 721 ; Alamo Oil Co. v. Curvier, 136 S. W. 1132 . [8] Appellant does not claim that there was no evidence to sustain, the issue of the depression in the floor, but asserts that there was no “credible evidence,” a matter that was settled by the jury, to whom the right to judge of the credibility of witnesses is ■confided by the laws of Texas. [9] The tenth assignment of error is of the same import as the ninth, and questions the probative force of the testimony as to the depression in the floor.

1908(Storey v. Nichols, 22 Texas, 87 .) The tenth assignment of error is without merit.

1896The testimony of the plaintiff complained of in the tenth assignment of error was admissible, and is justified by the ruling made in Railway v. Somers, 71 Texas, 700 .