From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

ELMO ROCK CO. v. SOWDERS

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Dallas
Mar 29, 1913
155 S.W. 270 (Tex. Civ. App. 1913)

Opinion

March 15, 1913. Rehearing Denied March 29, 1913.

Appeal from District Court, Kaufman County; F. L. Hawkins, Judge.

Action by J. B. Sowders against the Elmo Rock Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Dashiell, Crumbaugh Coon, of Terrell, and Meador Davis, of Dallas, for appellant. Wynne Wynne, of Wills Point, for appellee.


Appellee brought this suit against the appellant to recover damages for personal injuries received by him while working as an employé of appellant as a machinist in a rock quarry; that the injury was caused by the falling of a derrick, due to the negligence of appellant.

Appellant answered by general demurrer, general denial, assumed risk, and contributory negligence.

A trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for $5,000 in favor of appellee, from which this appeal is taken by appellant.

In this case we feel constrained to hold that none of the assignments of error presented by appellant's brief can be considered by us for a failure to comply with rules 24 and 25 (142 S.W. xii), promulgated by the Supreme Court for the government of the Courts of Civil Appeals.

In the eases of Railway Co. v. Ledbetter. 153 S.W. 646, and Lee v. Moore, 162 S.W. 437, both recently decided by this court, it was held that by noncompliance with said rules by the appellant in presenting the assignments they were treated as waived, and were not considered.

There is no fundamental error presented by the brief or the record, and the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

ELMO ROCK CO. v. SOWDERS

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Dallas
Mar 29, 1913
155 S.W. 270 (Tex. Civ. App. 1913)
Case details for

ELMO ROCK CO. v. SOWDERS

Case Details

Full title:ELMO ROCK CO. v. SOWDERS

Court:Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Dallas

Date published: Mar 29, 1913

Citations

155 S.W. 270 (Tex. Civ. App. 1913)

Citing Cases

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Hill

We here now refer to this opinion as stating in full our reasons for declining to consider the assignments in…

Texas Midland R. R. v. Cummins

This court has declined several times recently to consider such an assignment. Railway Co. v. Ledbetter, 153…