ninth assignment error in Texas

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.

1935Under the authority of Corpus Juris, vol. 43, pp. 945, 946, and Calwell v. City of Boone, 51 Iowa, 687 , 2 N. W. 614, 615 , 33 Am.

1935Under the authority of Corpus Juris, vol. 43, pp. 945, 946, and Calwell v. City of Boone, 51 Iowa, 687 , 2 N. W. 614, 615 , 33 Am.

1934App. 569 , 128 S. W. 909 , 130 S. W. 190 , 191, it is said: “The ninth assignment of error refers to six bills of exception for language of counsel, but fails- to indicate the language complained of, and will not be considered.” Assignments of error complaining of two or more distinct rulings of the court have also been held insufficient in the following eases: Crain v. Huntington, 81 Tex. 614 , 17 S. W. 243 ; Harrison Machine Works v. Templeton, 82 Tex. 443 , 18 S. W. 601 ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 84 Tex. 303 , 19 S. W. 477 ; Cannon v. Cannon, 66 Tex. 682 , 3 S. W. 36 ; International & G.

1934App. 569 , 128 S. W. 909 , 130 S. W. 190 , 191, it is said: “The ninth assignment of error refers to six bills of exception for language of counsel, but fails- to indicate the language complained of, and will not be considered.” Assignments of error complaining of two or more distinct rulings of the court have also been held insufficient in the following eases: Crain v. Huntington, 81 Tex. 614 , 17 S. W. 243 ; Harrison Machine Works v. Templeton, 82 Tex. 443 , 18 S. W. 601 ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 84 Tex. 303 , 19 S. W. 477 ; Cannon v. Cannon, 66 Tex. 682 , 3 S. W. 36 ; International & G.

1934App. 569 , 128 S. W. 909 , 130 S. W. 190 , 191, it is said: “The ninth assignment of error refers to six bills of exception for language of counsel, but fails- to indicate the language complained of, and will not be considered.” Assignments of error complaining of two or more distinct rulings of the court have also been held insufficient in the following eases: Crain v. Huntington, 81 Tex. 614 , 17 S. W. 243 ; Harrison Machine Works v. Templeton, 82 Tex. 443 , 18 S. W. 601 ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 84 Tex. 303 , 19 S. W. 477 ; Cannon v. Cannon, 66 Tex. 682 , 3 S. W. 36 ; International & G.

1934App. 569 , 128 S. W. 909 , 130 S. W. 190 , 191, it is said: “The ninth assignment of error refers to six bills of exception for language of counsel, but fails- to indicate the language complained of, and will not be considered.” Assignments of error complaining of two or more distinct rulings of the court have also been held insufficient in the following eases: Crain v. Huntington, 81 Tex. 614 , 17 S. W. 243 ; Harrison Machine Works v. Templeton, 82 Tex. 443 , 18 S. W. 601 ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 84 Tex. 303 , 19 S. W. 477 ; Cannon v. Cannon, 66 Tex. 682 , 3 S. W. 36 ; International & G.

1934App. 569 , 128 S. W. 909 , 130 S. W. 190 , 191, it is said: “The ninth assignment of error refers to six bills of exception for language of counsel, but fails- to indicate the language complained of, and will not be considered.” Assignments of error complaining of two or more distinct rulings of the court have also been held insufficient in the following eases: Crain v. Huntington, 81 Tex. 614 , 17 S. W. 243 ; Harrison Machine Works v. Templeton, 82 Tex. 443 , 18 S. W. 601 ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 84 Tex. 303 , 19 S. W. 477 ; Cannon v. Cannon, 66 Tex. 682 , 3 S. W. 36 ; International & G.

1934App. 569 , 128 S. W. 909 , 130 S. W. 190 , 191, it is said: “The ninth assignment of error refers to six bills of exception for language of counsel, but fails- to indicate the language complained of, and will not be considered.” Assignments of error complaining of two or more distinct rulings of the court have also been held insufficient in the following eases: Crain v. Huntington, 81 Tex. 614 , 17 S. W. 243 ; Harrison Machine Works v. Templeton, 82 Tex. 443 , 18 S. W. 601 ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 84 Tex. 303 , 19 S. W. 477 ; Cannon v. Cannon, 66 Tex. 682 , 3 S. W. 36 ; International & G.

1934App. 569 , 128 S. W. 909 , 130 S. W. 190 , 191, it is said: “The ninth assignment of error refers to six bills of exception for language of counsel, but fails- to indicate the language complained of, and will not be considered.” Assignments of error complaining of two or more distinct rulings of the court have also been held insufficient in the following eases: Crain v. Huntington, 81 Tex. 614 , 17 S. W. 243 ; Harrison Machine Works v. Templeton, 82 Tex. 443 , 18 S. W. 601 ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 84 Tex. 303 , 19 S. W. 477 ; Cannon v. Cannon, 66 Tex. 682 , 3 S. W. 36 ; International & G.

1934App. 569 , 128 S. W. 909 , 130 S. W. 190 , 191, it is said: “The ninth assignment of error refers to six bills of exception for language of counsel, but fails- to indicate the language complained of, and will not be considered.” Assignments of error complaining of two or more distinct rulings of the court have also been held insufficient in the following eases: Crain v. Huntington, 81 Tex. 614 , 17 S. W. 243 ; Harrison Machine Works v. Templeton, 82 Tex. 443 , 18 S. W. 601 ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 84 Tex. 303 , 19 S. W. 477 ; Cannon v. Cannon, 66 Tex. 682 , 3 S. W. 36 ; International & G.

1934App. 569 , 128 S. W. 909 , 130 S. W. 190 , 191, it is said: “The ninth assignment of error refers to six bills of exception for language of counsel, but fails- to indicate the language complained of, and will not be considered.” Assignments of error complaining of two or more distinct rulings of the court have also been held insufficient in the following eases: Crain v. Huntington, 81 Tex. 614 , 17 S. W. 243 ; Harrison Machine Works v. Templeton, 82 Tex. 443 , 18 S. W. 601 ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 84 Tex. 303 , 19 S. W. 477 ; Cannon v. Cannon, 66 Tex. 682 , 3 S. W. 36 ; International & G.

1919The counter proposition under this assignment is as follows: “There' is no merit in the assignment, (1) because it is not entitled to be considered as not briefed under the rules; and (2) because it will be impossible to predicate harmful error upon the submission of the' question as done.” That the submission of the question was in no event attended with that probable injury necessary for reversal, see Railway Co. v. Hughes, 192 S. W. 1091 ; Railway Co. v. Mc-Michael, 191 S. W. 186 . [17] The tenth and eleventh assignments of error complain that the court below erred in allowing plaintiff, af

1919The counter proposition under this assignment is as follows: “There' is no merit in the assignment, (1) because it is not entitled to be considered as not briefed under the rules; and (2) because it will be impossible to predicate harmful error upon the submission of the' question as done.” That the submission of the question was in no event attended with that probable injury necessary for reversal, see Railway Co. v. Hughes, 192 S. W. 1091 ; Railway Co. v. Mc-Michael, 191 S. W. 186 . [17] The tenth and eleventh assignments of error complain that the court below erred in allowing plaintiff, af

1917It was held in the case of Ellis v. Le Bow, 30 Tex. Civ.

1912Tennison v. Palmer, 142 S. W. 948 . [8] The ninth assignment of error is as follows: “The court erred in permitting the contestant, Mattie McDonald, to testify, over the objections of proponent, that two of the beneficiaries under the will offered for probate were in good financial circumstances.

1911App. 57 , 69 S. W. 1011 ; Railway Co. v. Martin, 98 Tex. 322 , 83 S. W. 675 ; Railway Co. v. Gerald, 128 S. W. 168 . [5] It appears that Cooper Sansom, Esq., counsel for plaintiff, addressing the jury, among other things, stated: “Tou are entitled to consider whether or not the plaintiff would have lived and retained his earning capacity for 20 years longer but for these injuries.” Exception was taken by appellant to these remarks, and a special charge requested, instructing the jury to disregard them, which was refused by the court, and these rulings are the basis of the ninth assignment of e

1911App. 57 , 69 S. W. 1011 ; Railway Co. v. Martin, 98 Tex. 322 , 83 S. W. 675 ; Railway Co. v. Gerald, 128 S. W. 168 . [5] It appears that Cooper Sansom, Esq., counsel for plaintiff, addressing the jury, among other things, stated: “Tou are entitled to consider whether or not the plaintiff would have lived and retained his earning capacity for 20 years longer but for these injuries.” Exception was taken by appellant to these remarks, and a special charge requested, instructing the jury to disregard them, which was refused by the court, and these rulings are the basis of the ninth assignment of e

1901Maxwell, had he not been killed, if he was killed, by the alleged shock.” Under the de *299 cisions in the case of Traction Company v. White, 81 Southwestern Reporter, 706, and Railway v. Morrison, 93 Texas, 527 , the instructions were erroneous.

1900Such finding necessarily includes, we think, a finding that as a matter of fact said employes did not use the means at their command to prevent the injury in question, and hence no material injury has in this particular been done appellant, and no practical good is to be attained by a reversal on this ground. *110 As the second phase of the question thus presented, which is in effect also presented by the ninth assignment of error, complaining of the action of the court in refusing a special instruction embodying appellant’s view, it would appear at first blush, perhaps, that the court had in

1900Such finding necessarily includes, we think, a finding that as a matter of fact said employes did not use the means at their command to prevent the injury in question, and hence no material injury has in this particular been done appellant, and no practical good is to be attained by a reversal on this ground. *110 As the second phase of the question thus presented, which is in effect also presented by the ninth assignment of error, complaining of the action of the court in refusing a special instruction embodying appellant’s view, it would appear at first blush, perhaps, that the court had in

1886We find no evidence upon the point in the record, and the assignment is well taken, (Andrews v. Smithwick, 20 Tex., 111 ; Austin v. Talk, Id,, 164; Blanton v. Mayes, 58 Tex., 422 .) The error cannot be cured by a remittitur in this court, it being impossible to determine whether the jury allowed rent or not, and if so, how much.

1886We find no evidence upon the point in the record, and the assignment is well taken, (Andrews v. Smithwick, 20 Tex., 111 ; Austin v. Talk, Id,, 164; Blanton v. Mayes, 58 Tex., 422 .) The error cannot be cured by a remittitur in this court, it being impossible to determine whether the jury allowed rent or not, and if so, how much.