Withers v. Crenshaw

5 Citing cases

  1. Lerer v. Raines

    27 S.W.2d 621 (Tex. Civ. App. 1930)   Cited 3 times

    Assignments of error numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 all are directed to the court's action in overruling special exceptions to appellee's petition. The courts of our state have uniformly held that rulings of the trial court on exceptions, in order to be reviewed by the appellate court, must be preserved in a recorded judgment entered thereon, and that same cannot be preserved by a bill of exceptions. I. G. N. Ry. Co. v. Straub (Tex.Civ.App.) 7 S.W.2d 112; National Bank of Hopewell v. Marshall (Tex.Civ.App.) 2 S.W.2d 471; Southern Casualty Co. v. Welch Motor Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 291 S.W. 272; Cohen v. Hill (Tex.Civ.App.) 286 S.W. 661; Hall v. Williams Ellis (Tex.Civ.App.) 267 S.W. 520; Ilseng v. Carter (Tex.Civ.App.) 158 S.W. 1163; Withers v. Crenshaw (Tex.Civ.App.) 155 S.W. 1189; Bishop v. Mount (Tex.Civ.App.) 152 S.W. 442; Daniel v. Daniel (Tex.Civ.App.) 128 S.W. 469, 471 (writ of error denied). We find bills of exceptions setting forth the action of the court in overruling these exceptions, but have failed to find in the transcript any judgment thereon.

  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. Cohen v. Hill

    286 S.W. 661 (Tex. Civ. App. 1926)   Cited 13 times
    In Cohen v. Hill (Tex.Civ.App.) 286 S.W. 661, 665, where the sufficiency of the pleadings to permit the introduction of testimony of a particular injury was under consideration, the court stated the rule to be that whether specifically alleged injuries in a petition require the exclusion of evidence relating to other injuries depended upon the construction of the pleader's language rather than on the rule that the inclusion of certain injuries excluded all others.

    Ilseng v. Carter (Tex.Civ.App.) 158 S.W. 1163; Withers v. Crenshaw (Tex.Civ.App.) 155 S.W. 1189 (writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction); Daniel v. Daniel (Tex.Civ.App.) 128 S.W. 471 (writ of error denied); Alvord National Bank v. Waples-Platter Gro. Co., 54 Tex. Civ. App. 225, 118 S.W. 232; Dobson v. Zimmerman, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 394, 118 S.W. 236; Bishop v. Mount (Tex.Civ.App.) 152 S.W. 442. It follows, therefore, that the special exceptions to plaintiff's petition must be considered as having been waived by the defendants, and the assignments of error based thereon are accordingly overruled.

  4. 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.

  5. 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: