Cr. App.] 251 S.W. 812; Stutzman v. State [Tex. Cr. App.] 251 S.W. 813). The Supreme Court of the United States has recently laid down some very wholesome rules for the governance of District Judges in the matter of when they will assume the extraordinary jurisdiction here invoked to declare null and void the ordered processes of the state courts, with all of which I thoroughly agree, and I need only refer to that case for an expression of the general principles controlling here.
But while it is not now necessary to follow an assignment of error with a separate proposition, still, in the absence of fundamental error, the assignment, not otherwise appearing, must be brought forward from the back of the brief and presented as a proposition of law of itself and followed by such argument or discussion as is desired, with a reference to the authorities relied on and a clear accurate statement of the record bearing upon the assignment as required by rule 31. Western Casualty Co. v. Lapco (Tex.Civ.App.) 108 S.W.2d 740 (writ dismissed), opinion by Justice Brown, and decisions referred to, which is in accord with the opinion of the Commission of Appeals in Lamar-Delta County Levee Imp. Dist. No. 2 v. Dunn, 61 S.W.2d 816. Numerous decisions might be cited holding that failure of the complainant to comply with such requirements is fatal to the proposition urged either as an assignment of error of itself, or as a proposition in aid of an assignment; such as Terry v. Williamson (Tex.Civ.App.) 251 S.W. 813; Chicago, R. I. G. Ry. Co. v. Vesera (Tex.Civ.App.) 237 S.W. 349; Lancaster v. Crosby (Tex.Civ.App.) 263 S.W. 646; Brigman v. Holt Bowers (Tex.Civ.App.) 32 S.W.2d 220 (writ refused). Aside from the question of sufficiency of the assignments to present the issues of waiver and estoppel for the reasons embodied in the two propositions and statements thereunder (a question we will not undertake to determine and do not determine, in view of conclusions hereafter shown), it cannot be said that the court erred in refusing to hold that defendants' right to urge the defense of usury was waived, or that they were estopped to urged it by reason of their claim of title burdened with the provisions of the trust deed executed to Martin Stiles, trustee.
The objection to appellant's brief is sustained. Austin v. Freestone County (Tex.Civ.App.) 288 S.W. 870 (writ refused); Robinson v. Cleveland State Bank (Tex.Civ.App.) 282 S.W. 860; Green v. Shamburger (Tex.Civ.App.) 243 S.W. 601; Southern Casualty Co. v. Vatter, 115 Tex. 148, 278 S.W. 177; Baker v. Hodges (Tex.Civ.App.) 231 S.W. 849; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Brett (Tex.Civ.App.) 231 S.W. 449; Terry v. Williamson (Tex.Civ.App.) 251 S.W. 813; Lancaster v. Crosby (Tex.Civ.App.) 263 S.W. 646; McCord Co. v. Citizens' Hotel Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 287 S.W. 906. This leaves the case as though no brief had been filed. The appeals of Warren, Singletary, and Myers being before us without any brief, and the court below having jurisdiction of the parties and the matters involved, and the judgment being such as under the pleadings could be rendered, and no fundamental error apparent upon the face of the record appearing, the action of the court in directing the verdict as to the title to the land should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
"Appellees submit that this court cannot and should not consider any of the aforesaid propositions attempted to be submitted by appellants in this cause, by reason of the fact that same are submitted in flagrant violation of rule 30 relating to the preparation of briefs in this court, as promulgated and adopted by the Supreme Court, effective September 1, 1921. "To support our contention that this court should not consider said propositions at all, we respectfully refer the court to the following authorities: Equipment Co. v. Luse et al. (Tex.Civ.App.) 250 S.W. 1104; Terry et al. v. Williamson (Tex.Civ.App.) 251 S.W. 813; Fort Worth R. G. Ry. Co. v. Hardin et al. (Tex.Civ.App.) 251 S.W. 814; and Blakeney v. Johnson County (Tex.Civ.App.) 253 S.W. 333. "Second.
"In submitting cases on special issues, the statute requires that all issues raised by the pleadings be submitted; and, where the defendants plead improvements in good faith, and there is evidence in the record to support such plea, the defendants are entitled to have that issue submitted, and it is reversible error for the court to refuse a requested charge on that issue." This proposition does not cite any assignment to which it is germane, as required by the rules for briefing, and for that reason should not be considered. Affierbach v. School District (Tex.Civ.App.) 283 S.W. 333, not yet [officially] published; Equipment Co. v. Luse (Tex.Civ.App.) 250 S.W. 1104; Terry v. Williamson (Tex.Civ.App.) 251 S.W. 813. However, we have looked to the assignments in the back of appellant's brief, and there we find appellants' second assignment, which is as follows:
In view of the briefs filed in this case by appellant, this court could, with propriety, have declined to consider any of the assignments of error. It was not contemplated under the new rules for briefing that an indiscriminate mass of propositions and statements should be copied into briefs without reference to the assignments, and devolve upon appellate courts strenuous efforts to co-ordinate and correlate them. The brief should decrease, and not increase, the labor of a court; it should assist, and not burden, the court in which it is filed, and this can, at least to a limited extent, be attained even under the cumbersome rules of 1922 promulgated by the Supreme Court. For a clear discussion as to what a brief should contain we refer to an opinion of this court prepared by Associate Justice Edward W. Smith, and on this day handed down in the case of Terry v. Williamson, 251 S.W. 813. The judgment is affirmed.