King-Collie Co. v. Wichita Falls Warehouse

8 Citing cases

  1. Natl. Union Fire Ins. v. Wallace

    118 S.W.2d 609 (Tex. Civ. App. 1938)   Cited 4 times
    Affirming judgment for defendant

    He cannot by such a bill of exception make a finding of fact and conclusion of law which is contrary to the judgment roll upon which the judgment was rendered. Willis v. Graf, Tex. Civ. App. 257 S.W. 664; King-Collie Co. v. Wichita Falls Warehouse Co., Tex. Civ. App. 205 S.W. 748. The bill of exception was not presented to counsel for appellee before it was filed, giving him an opportunity to examine and contest same; it will therefore not be considered.

  2. Epting v. Nees

    25 S.W.2d 717 (Tex. Civ. App. 1930)   Cited 10 times

    Upon the same theory the courts have repeatedly refused to review rulings upon special exceptions where the ruling was shown only by bill of exception. Some of the cases so holding are as follows: Daniel v. Daniel (Tex.Civ.App.) 128 S.W. 469; Withers v. Crenshaw (Tex.Civ.App.) 155 S.W. 1189; Ilseng v. Carter (Tex.Civ.App.) 158 S.W. 1163; King-Collie Co. v. Wichita Falls, etc. (Tex.Civ.App.) 205 S.W. 748, and cases there cited. Wichita Falls, R. F. W. Ry. Co. v. Mendoza (Tex.Civ.App.) 240 S.W. 570; Gardner v. Goodner, etc., Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 247 S.W. 291; Finklea v. Bank (Tex.Civ.App.) 247 S.W. 320; Simmons v. Simmons (Tex.Civ.App.) 256 S.W. 314, and cases cited.

  3. Briley v. Hay

    13 S.W.2d 997 (Tex. Civ. App. 1929)   Cited 12 times

    District court rule 53 (142 S.W. xxi); Jackson v. E. L. Rice Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 295 S.W. 352; Daniel v. Daniel (Tex.Civ.App.) 128 S.W. 469; Ilseng v. Carter (Tex.Civ.App.) 158 S.W. 1163; King-Collie Co. v. Wichita Falls Warehouse Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 105 S.W. 748; Withers v. Crenshaw (Tex.Civ.App.) 155 S.W. 1189; Southern Casualty Co. v. Morgan (Tex.Civ.App.) 299 S.W. 476; Alsabrook v. Bishop (Tex.Civ.App.) 295 S.W. 646. We doubt, however, if appellee's petition is sufficient to state a cause of action under either of the two theories mentioned. If so, an error of a fundamental nature is involved which requires our notice, even in the absence of an assignment.

  4. Jackson v. E. L. Rice Co.

    295 S.W. 352 (Tex. Civ. App. 1927)   Cited 4 times

    A proposition asserts error on the part of the court in sustaining a general demurrer and special exceptions to that part of defendant's defense in which he set up a breach of warranty and failure of consideration. Rulings upon demurrers must be shown by judgment entry and not by bill of exception, as is here attempted to be done. District court rule 53; Daniel v. Daniel (Tex.Civ.App.) 128 S.W. 469; Withers v. Crenshaw (Tex.Civ.App.) 155 S.W. 1189; Ilseng v. Carter (Tex.Civ.App.) 158 S.W. 1163; King-Collie Co. v. Wichita Falls Warehouse Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 205 S.W. 748, and cases cited. Furthermore, it is impossible to tell from the bill what exceptions, if any, were sustained. It purports to relate to some "ruling" made by the court. It does not seem to refer to any action upon demurrers.

  5. Evans v. Ellis

    257 S.W. 294 (Tex. Civ. App. 1923)   Cited 3 times

    Some of the courts have held that exceptions to orders on a plea of privilege should be reserved by bill of exceptions; there is a conflict in the decisions as to such matter, and we do not enter into a discussion of the subject here, as we may dispose of the case on the assumption that the bill of exceptions should be disregarded. This court held in the case of King-Collie Co. v. Wichita Warehouse Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 205 S.W. 748, that exception in the judgment entry is not necessary where the record otherwise shows that the party was objecting to the action of the court. In that case, as in this, no exception to the order on demurrer was noted; but the point was presented in the motion for new trial in the court below and by assignment in this court, and it was held that this was sufficient.

  6. Simmons v. Simmons

    256 S.W. 314 (Tex. Civ. App. 1923)   Cited 1 times

    Harris, Rules of the Courts Annotated 1921, pp. 171, 179, and 180; Finklea v. First State Bank of Joaquin (Tex.Civ.App.) 247 S.W. 320; Dobson v. Zimmerman, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 394, 118 S.W. 236; Alvord Nat. Bank v. Waples-Platter Gro. Co., 54 Tex. Civ. App. 225, 118 S.W. 232; Ilseng v. Carter (Tex.Civ.App.) 158 S.W. 1163; Withers v. Crenshaw (Tex.Civ.App.) 155 S.W. 1189; Baker v. Sparks (Tex.Civ.App.) 234 S.W. 1109; King-Collie Co. v. Wichita Falls Warehouse Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 205 S.W. 748; Daniel v. Daniel (Tex.Civ.App.) 128 S.W. 469. The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.

  7. Wichita Falls, R. F. W. R. v. Mendoza

    240 S.W. 570 (Tex. Civ. App. 1922)   Cited 12 times

    This matter was fully considered in Daniel v. Daniel (Tex.Civ.App.) 128 S.W. 469. To the same effect see Withers v. Crenshaw (Tex.Civ.App.) 155 S.W. 1189; Ilseng v. Carter (Tex.Civ.App.) 158 S.W. 1163; King-Collie Co. v. Wichita Falls, etc. (Tex.Civ.App.) 205 S.W. 748, and cases there cited. In view, however, of retrial, it is not improper to say that the petition is objectionable in the particulars indicated.

  8. Baker v. Sparks

    234 S.W. 1109 (Tex. Civ. App. 1921)   Cited 6 times

    We are without authority to review the ruling of the trial court on exceptions to pleadings, where, as in this case, the only record of such ruling is by bill of exception. District Court Rules 53, 65, 142 S.W. xxi, xxii; Withers v. Crenshaw, 155 S.W. 1189; Ilseng v. Carter, 158 S.W. 1163; King-Collie Co. v. Wichita Falls Warehouse Co., 205 S.W. 748. The issue of contributory negligence of the plaintiff was submitted to the jury by questions 4 and 5, which were as follows: