Opinion
No. 3915.
December 5, 1930. Rehearing Denied December 11, 1930.
Error from District Court, Dallas County; Towne Young, Judge.
Action by Jeannette Sueravitz against Ben Lebowitz and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and the named defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
September 17, 1925, as the result of a collision on a street in the city of Dallas between an automobile operated by an employee of W. G. Hurst and plaintiff in error, Ben Lebowitz (partners doing business as the Ford Rent Company), in which defendant in error, Jeannette Sueravitz, was a passenger for hire, and a truck operated by an employee of C. E. Harkrider (doing business as the Park Cigar Company) she (said defendant in error) suffered injury to her person. On the theory that the collision was due to actionable negligence, in ways specified in her petition filed September 14, 1927, on the part of the person operating the automobile and also on the part of the person operating the truck, said defendant in error sued Hurst and Lebowitz and also Harkrider for damages in the sum of $5,000. She afterwards dismissed her suit so far as it was against Harkrider, and prosecuted it to a judgment in her favor for said sum so far as it was against Hurst and Lebowitz. This writ of error was sued out by said Lebowitz alone. There is no statement of facts with the record sent to this court.
J. P. Rice and Wm. H. Clark, Jr., both of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.
Wm. M. Cramer, of Dallas, for defendant in error.
By the terms of article 1844, Rev.St. 1925, plaintiff in error was required, before he took the transcript from the office of the clerk of the court below, to file with said clerk "assignments of error specifying the grounds" on which he relied for a reversal of the judgment. By the terms of Rule 32 for the government of Courts of Civil Appeals, he was required to copy such assignments in the brief he filed here. This requirement he failed to comply with. It has been repeatedly held, when such assignments are not copied into the appellant's or plaintiff in error's brief, that an appellate court should consider only "errors apparent on the face of the record." Clonts v. Johnson, 116 Tex. 489, 294 S.W. 844, 846; Gladney v. Pate (Tex.Civ.App.) 29 S.W.2d 794: Dawes v. Irr. Dist. (Tex.Civ.App.) 25 S.W.2d 907; Greenwall v. Ligon (Tex.Com.App.) 14 S.W.2d 829; Devlin v. Heid Bros. (Tex.Civ.App.) 21 S.W.2d 746. Plaintiff in error has not pointed out, and we have not found, such an error in the record, and therefore cannot do otherwise than affirm the judgment.