They point out no specific error which has resulted in any injury to the appellant, and cannot, therefore, be considered. 3 Tex.Jur. 880, ยง 14, note 13, and authorities cited; Burke v. Wagner (Tex.Civ.App.) 17 S.W.2d 113; S. H. Kress Co. v. Brashier (Tex.Civ.App.) 50 S.W.2d 922; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Marshall (Tex.Civ.App.) 14 S.W.2d 337; Atlas Torpedo Co. v. United States Torpedo Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 15 S.W.2d 150; First State Bank v. Commercial State Bank (Tex.Civ.App.) 34 S.W.2d 297; Texas N. O. Ry. Co. v. Martin (Tex.Civ.App.) 32 S.W.2d 363; Cook v. Williams (Tex.Civ.App.) 32 S.W.2d 244; Anderson v. Texas N. O. Ry. Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 63 S.W.2d 1079; Lubbock Nat. Bank v. Nickels (Tex.Civ.App.) 63 S.W.2d 764; Holsomback v. Taylor (Tex.Civ.App.) 61 S.W.2d 544; Fidelity Union Casualty Co. v. Koonce (Tex.Civ.App.) 51 S.W.2d 777; Finance Corp. of America v. Stone (Tex.Civ.App.) 54 S.W.2d 254. A proposition must present something tangible.
Crawford v. Ramsey (Tex. Civ. App.) 73 S.W.2d 1064; Lamar-Delta County Levee Improvement District v. Dunn (Tex.Com.App.) 61 S.W.2d 816; Blackmon v. Trail (Tex.Com.App.) 12 S.W.2d 967; Texas Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Dean (Tex. Civ. App.) 77 S.W.2d 748; South Plains Coaches v. Behringer (Tex. Civ. App.) 4 S.W.2d 1003; United Chemical Co. v. Leathers (Tex. Civ. App.) 285 S.W. 918; Central Lumber Co. v. Fall (Tex. Civ. App.) 264 S.W. 513; 3 Tex.Jur. 884; Texas N. O. Ry. Co. v. Martin (Tex. Civ. App.) 32 S.W.2d 363; Cook v. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.) 32 S.W.2d 244; Gill v. Baird (Tex. Civ. App.) 32 S.W.2d 941. Because appellant's assignments of error are not followed by the required statements or arguments and are duplicitous, too general, and suggest errors which would require the court to read the entire statement of facts to ascertain whether they are meritorious, the assignments will not be considered.