' See also Gonzalez v. Alianza Hispano-Americana, 112 S.W.2d 802 (Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio, 1937, error dism.). Also Morris v. Alworth, 32 S.W.2d 238, 239 (Tex.Civ.App., Eastland, 1930, no writ), where it says: `In other words, the burden upon appellants to affirmatively show reversible error in the judgment is not met by a showing that one of several grounds upon which it may have been based was untenable, without showing that all grounds were untenable.'
re to the same effect: City of West University Place v. Ellis, 134 Tex. 222, 225, 134 S.W.2d 1038; Texas Creosoting Co. v. Hartburg Lumber Co., Tex.Com.App., 12 S.W.2d 169; Patrick v. Simpson, Tex. Civ. App. 168 S.W.2d 315, 316 (writ ref.); Smith v. Fishback, Tex. Civ. App. 123 S.W.2d 771, 773 (writ ref.); Haden Employees' Ass'n. v. Lovett, Tex. Civ. App. 122 S.W.2d 230, 233 (writ ref.); Boyd v. Keystone Driller Co., Tex. Civ. App. 6 S.W.2d 221, 223 (writ ref.); Williams v. Henderson County Levee Improvement Dist. No. 3, Tex.Com.App., 36 S.W.2d 204, 205; Vick v. Duggan, Tex. Civ. App. 143 S.W.2d 1010, 1011; Gibson v. Henderson, Tex. Civ. App. 136 S.W.2d 634, 635; Miller v. State, Tex. Civ. App. 155 S.W.2d 1012. 1015; Hooven Radiator Co. v. Little Motor Kar Co., Tex. Civ. App. 291 S.W. 313, 314; Indian State Oil Co. of Texas v. McCutchen, Tex. Civ. App. 183 S.W.2d 692 (writ ref.); Commercial Credit Corp. v. Smith, 143 Tex. 612, 616, 187 S.W.2d 363. In Morris v. Alworth, Tex. Civ. App. 32 S.W.2d 238, this court held that the burden is upon an appellant to affirmatively show error in the judgment and that reversible error is not made apparent by a showing that one of several grounds on which a judgment could have been based was untenable without showing that all grounds for the judgment were untenable. In Hart v. Huie, Tex. Civ. App. 15 S.W.2d 654, 655 (writ dis.), the San Antonio Court of Civil Appeals said:
In other words, to avoid the judgment, in the light of this record, appellant was under the necessity of destroying every theory on which the judgment is maintainable under the pleadings. Morris v. Alworth (Tex.Civ.App.) 32 S.W.2d 238; Graham National Bank v. Beavers, supra. For aught we know, the judgment may, under the pleadings, have been rendered against the plaintiff upon the ground that he failed to show what particular part of the $80,000 obtained for the casinghead gas at the well was paid for the dry gas and what part for the gasoline content, the elements making up the casinghead gas. Clearly he was not entitled to recover any part of the money received by the lessee for the dry gas under any of the decisions of this state.