fourteenth assignment error in Texas

1918Grabenheimer v. Blum, 63 Tex. 369 ; Kennedy v. Bender, 104 Tex. 149 , 135 S. W. 524 ; Winters v. Coward, 174 S. W. 940 ; Hubbs v. Marshall, 175 S. W. 716 . [7, 8] Under the fourteenth assignment of error complaint is made that by plaintiff’s acceptance of the machines after its agreement to waive all guarantees of them it waived any right to claim damages for the alleged fraud and deceit, appellant submits a proposition in which it is insisted further that the plaintiff should be held to the same waiver by reason of its renewal of the purchase-money, notes given for the machines after discover

1918Grabenheimer v. Blum, 63 Tex. 369 ; Kennedy v. Bender, 104 Tex. 149 , 135 S. W. 524 ; Winters v. Coward, 174 S. W. 940 ; Hubbs v. Marshall, 175 S. W. 716 . [7, 8] Under the fourteenth assignment of error complaint is made that by plaintiff’s acceptance of the machines after its agreement to waive all guarantees of them it waived any right to claim damages for the alleged fraud and deceit, appellant submits a proposition in which it is insisted further that the plaintiff should be held to the same waiver by reason of its renewal of the purchase-money, notes given for the machines after discover

1918Grabenheimer v. Blum, 63 Tex. 369 ; Kennedy v. Bender, 104 Tex. 149 , 135 S. W. 524 ; Winters v. Coward, 174 S. W. 940 ; Hubbs v. Marshall, 175 S. W. 716 . [7, 8] Under the fourteenth assignment of error complaint is made that by plaintiff’s acceptance of the machines after its agreement to waive all guarantees of them it waived any right to claim damages for the alleged fraud and deceit, appellant submits a proposition in which it is insisted further that the plaintiff should be held to the same waiver by reason of its renewal of the purchase-money, notes given for the machines after discover

1918Grabenheimer v. Blum, 63 Tex. 369 ; Kennedy v. Bender, 104 Tex. 149 , 135 S. W. 524 ; Winters v. Coward, 174 S. W. 940 ; Hubbs v. Marshall, 175 S. W. 716 . [7, 8] Under the fourteenth assignment of error complaint is made that by plaintiff’s acceptance of the machines after its agreement to waive all guarantees of them it waived any right to claim damages for the alleged fraud and deceit, appellant submits a proposition in which it is insisted further that the plaintiff should be held to the same waiver by reason of its renewal of the purchase-money, notes given for the machines after discover

1918Grabenheimer v. Blum, 63 Tex. 369 ; Kennedy v. Bender, 104 Tex. 149 , 135 S. W. 524 ; Winters v. Coward, 174 S. W. 940 ; Hubbs v. Marshall, 175 S. W. 716 . [7, 8] Under the fourteenth assignment of error complaint is made that by plaintiff’s acceptance of the machines after its agreement to waive all guarantees of them it waived any right to claim damages for the alleged fraud and deceit, appellant submits a proposition in which it is insisted further that the plaintiff should be held to the same waiver by reason of its renewal of the purchase-money, notes given for the machines after discover

1912Judge Head said, in the case of Railway Co. v. Neill, 30 S. W. 369 : “We think our Supreme Court has announced a wholesome rule, which should be generally applied, when it said in Railway Co. v. Corley [ 87 Tex. 432 ], 29 S. W. 231 : ‘This court, however, will look to the whole charge as well as the evidence and verdict to determine whether or not it is probable that the technical error in the framing of the charge has worked any injury to the defendant.’ ” [10] The fourteenth assignment of error is to the effect that the verdict of the jury is exorbitant and excessive.

1912Judge Head said, in the case of Railway Co. v. Neill, 30 S. W. 369 : “We think our Supreme Court has announced a wholesome rule, which should be generally applied, when it said in Railway Co. v. Corley [ 87 Tex. 432 ], 29 S. W. 231 : ‘This court, however, will look to the whole charge as well as the evidence and verdict to determine whether or not it is probable that the technical error in the framing of the charge has worked any injury to the defendant.’ ” [10] The fourteenth assignment of error is to the effect that the verdict of the jury is exorbitant and excessive.

1912App. 575 , 24 S. W. 536 . [5] The court erred, as shown by the fourteenth assignment of error, in refusing to permit appellant Biard to testify what his purpose or reason was for placing the deeds in question in the possession of the said Ernest Lovan.

1912App. 164 , 58 S. W. 725 , in which a writ of error was denied by the Supreme Court. [7] The twelfth assignment charges that the court erred in failing to submit to the jury the following special issues asked by appellant: “Did the plaintiff, the Texas Machinery <& Supply Company, through its engineer, Mr. Mitchell, operate said engine for five days in the month of July, 1910?” There was no error in refusing to submit this issue, for the reason, if no' other, that the same was sufficiently submitted by the court in the ninth special issue, and was by the jury answered that no test as required b

1911A writ of error was granted by the Supreme Court, and on February 8, 1911, said court, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Ramsey, held that the judgment of this court was error and remanded the case to this court for the judgment and conclusions of this court on an assignment of error presented by appellee complaining of language used by counsel for plaintiff in his argument to the jury, and the cause then to be returned to the Supreme Court for its further proceedings therein. 133 S. W. 1041 . [1] In deference to said instructions, we *1147 proceed to the consideration of the fourteenth assignment

1905That the interrogatories propounded to these witnesses, eliciting the answers objected to, were not leading, is affirmed, we think, in the cases of Lott v. King, 79 Texas, 296 , and Railway Co. v. Dalwigh, 92 Texas, 655 .

1889Railway Co. v. Redeker, 67 Texas, 181 .