The particular paragraph of the charge assailed was pointed out, and the objections thereto distinctly specified within the meaning of the statute. Clarendon v. McClellan, 86 Tex. 192, and annotations thereof Rose's Notes on Texas Reports, vol. 4, p. 494. The statute, should not be given a construction so technical as to deny the right of review on appeal where a substantial compliance is shown and its end practically accomplished.
Yet in Bleidorn v. Pilot Mountain, 89 Tenn. 214, we find Mr. Justice Lurton, then an associate justice of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, saying: "We have construed the rule requiring assignments of error with liberality, and to hold that a good assignment is rendered bad by the insufficiency of the reasons advanced in its support would be highly technical and a sticking in the bark." Houston v. Blythe, 71 Tex. 719, also cited by the appellees, is a case in line with Wood v. Frazier ( supra), but later the Supreme Court of Texas in Land Co. v. McClelland Bros. 86 Tex. 192, said: "Where an assignment of error is sufficiently specific to enable the court to see that a particular ruling is complained of, it should be held good, although it should fail to state the reason why such ruling is claimed to be erroneous. An assignment may be brief and yet specific, and brevity in such a case is commendable and accords with good practice.
James H. Robertson and Robertson Robertson, for appellee. — On sufficiency of the pleading and evidence: Rule 17 for District Courts; Clarendon Land Co. v. McClelland Bros., 86 Tex. 192; Pennington v. Schwartz, 70 Tex. 212 [ 70 Tex. 212]; Canales v. Perez, 65 Tex. 293; International G. N. R. Co. v. Hinzie, 82 Tex. 629. The charge given on assumed risk was correct: Gulf, C. S. F. Ry. Co. v. Huyett, 99 Tex. 636; Houston T. C. Ry. Co. v. Turner, 99 Tex. 553; Texas N. O. Ry. Co. v. Kelly, 98 Tex. 137; St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co. v. Brisco, 100 Tex. 358.
Conclusions of Law. — But one assignment of error is made, and it is objected to for being too general, the assignment reading: "The court erred in sustaining defendant's general demurrer to plaintiff's original petition and accordingly dismissed the suit and rendering judgment in favor of defendant for costs." An assignment in terms quite as general, complaining of an order overruling a general demurrer, was considered sufficient in Land Company v. McClelland Brothers, 86 Tex. 192; but in Railway v. Calnon, 50 S.W. Rep., 422, in which writ of error was refused, such an assignment, "in the absence of a proposition making it more specific," was held to be "too general to demand consideration." The proposition in this instance merely states that the petition stated "a good and valid cause of action," which is about as general as the assignment.
All that appellant was required to do by his assignment, was to specify the particular instruction complained of. The reason why it is claimed to have been erroneous forms no proper part of the assignment, but belongs more properly to the brief. Land Co. v. McClellan, 86 Tex. 192. The objection now urged, in appellant's brief, to the instruction is that it puts too great a burden upon the plaintiff, and we think this objection is well taken.
We understand that it is the ruling attacked, and not the reasons urged to show its error, that must be specified in the assignment. Rule 25; Land Co. v. McClelland Bros., 86 Tex. 192. Thus considered, the assignment points to no one ruling of the court, but to several, in some of which it is claimed, for the reasons stated, the court committed error. We must therefore decline to consider the assignment sufficient to bring in review the ruling upon the special exceptions.