Humber v. Morton

2 Citing cases

  1. Pipkin v. Dezendorf

    618 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981)   Cited 3 times
    In Pipkin, the Court commented that "appellant was unaware of the presumption of revocation in appellee's favor and that he had the burden to overcome it."

    By his point of error, appellant argues that the court erred in granting appellee's motion for an instructed verdict. Appellee contends that appellant's point of error is not properly before this court because it is too general for consideration and does not comply with Rule 418, T.R.C.P. Benefit Trust Life Insurance Co. v. Baker, 487 S.W.2d 406 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1972, no writ); Wagon Wheel Club, Inc. v. Restaurant Equipment Supply Company, 410 S.W.2d 788 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1967, no writ); Humber v. Morton, 448 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1969, writ ref'd n. r. e.). Appellant argues that Rule 418 should be liberally construed.

  2. Bookout v. Pugh

    513 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. Civ. App. 1974)   Cited 4 times

    00 `that should have been set aside in the research and development special account.' The prayer was that `the Court enter judgment for plaintiff'. The motion was expressly overruled on November 16, 1973. Plaintiff's first point of error complains that `the trial court erred in overruling plaintiff's motion for judgment'. The point does not meet the requirements of Rule 418, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. It encompasses any and every error committed by the trial court, and therefore means nothing. McWilliams v. Muse, 157 Tex. 109, 300 S.W.2d 643 (1957); Humber v. Morton, 448 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Civ.App. — Amarillo 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Tindall v. Tacconelly, 328 S.W.2d 909 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The point is insufficient to direct our attention to any particular reason why judgment should have been rendered for plaintiff. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. v. McFerrin, 156 Tex. 69, 291 S.W.2d 931, 941 (1956).