From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

E. G. RAL GRAIN v. BURKS-SIMMONS

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth
Nov 21, 1914
171 S.W. 1043 (Tex. Civ. App. 1914)

Opinion

No. 8017.

October 17, 1914. Rehearing Denied November 21, 1914.

Appeal from Comanche County Court; J. H. McMillan, Judge.

Action by the Burks-Simmons Company against the E. G. Rall Grain Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Crenshaw Boykin, of Ft. Worth, for appellant. Kearby Kearby, of Comanche, for appellee.


This suit was instituted by the appellee company in the county court of Comanche county to recover a balance due upon a sale of 12,000 bushels of oats, and the only question presented for our consideration in appellant's brief is whether the court erred in overruling appellant's plea of privilege to be sued in Tarrant county, the place of its domicile.

An examination of the record discloses that the assignment presenting the question suggested cannot be said to be even a substantial copy of the only paragraph of appellant's motion for new trial which refers to the subject. The assignment must therefore be disregarded in accordance with a well-settled rule of practice. See Vernon's Sayles' Tex.Civ.Stat. art. 1612; Gen. Laws 1913, p. 276; Rules 23 and 29 (142 S.W. xii); Edwards v. Youngblood, 160 S.W. 288; Bradshaw v. Kearby Kearby, 168 S.W. 436.

No other question having been presented, it is ordered that the judgment be affirmed.


Summaries of

E. G. RAL GRAIN v. BURKS-SIMMONS

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth
Nov 21, 1914
171 S.W. 1043 (Tex. Civ. App. 1914)
Case details for

E. G. RAL GRAIN v. BURKS-SIMMONS

Case Details

Full title:E. G. RALL GRAIN CO. v. BURKS-SIMMONS CO

Court:Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth

Date published: Nov 21, 1914

Citations

171 S.W. 1043 (Tex. Civ. App. 1914)

Citing Cases

Riggs v. Baleman

In this condition of the record, the assignments presented to this court in appellant's brief cannot be…

Cole v. Knights of Maccabees of the World

The rule is established in this state that, while a motion for new trial is not necessary in cases tried…