Banks plead and sued for benefits payable as a result of a general injury, evidence was produced by both parties and the jury's verdict was that Banks" injury caused an incapacity limited to the loss of the use of the right leg, a loss compensable as a specific injury. Banks did not alternatively, or otherwise, sue to recover compensation for incapacity allowable under Art. 8306, Sec. 12, and in the absence of a suit for recovery of Specific injury compensation the trial judge properly held that he was not entitled to a recovery under the jury verdict. Though not in point, McCartney v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., supra, and Texas Employers" Ins. Ass'n v. Pearson, 67 S.W.2d 630 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo, 1934, writ dism'd) are instructive. No previously decided case precisely in point has been found, but the appellee insurance company urges Tex.R.Civ.P. 279 (1967); Hardegree v. American and Foreign Insurance Company, 449 S.W.2d 554 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth, 1969, no writ); and Universal Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Potter, 411 S.W.2d 400 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont, 1966, writ ref'd, n.r.e.) in support of the trial court judgment. The conclusions expressed, though more narrowly based, are in harmony with the cited rule and cases.