*1 794 jury. grand hearing presence the been sustained. and of the objection should have The The written recited have confession should Bradley. by warning- given Mr. was that the law, changes purpose in the certain The governing- of confes of written the admission Prendergast by Judge discussed sions is well 336, State, 137 R. 62 Tex. Cr. in Henzen v. proposition 1141, where.,the is em S. W. P., 727, phasized wit, to stated in article O. C. as that shall show written confession that a by party making warned the was same the grand person whom, A made. was to same peo any group jury person, of nor a is iisnot “person” suoh, is ple the word in the sense supra; 727, can add we reasons ad but in article used argument nothing and the to opin Prendergast by Judge in the vanced ion in kins 542; Young See, also, Jen case referred to. the 238, State, W. Cr. R. 131 S. v. 60 Tex. 417, State, 113 R. v. 54 Tex. Cr. State, 276; Cr. Robertson v. 54 Tex. R. S. W. Sanders, Adams & McAlister and P. A. all Boyman 741; State, 23, Tex. v. 59 111 S. W. Nacogdoches, appellant. of for True, appellant 26, 1142. R. S. W. Cr. 126 Thompson, & Denman and Tucker & Seale trial, and ad on his took the witness stand appellees. Nacogdoches, all of for statement; signed equally the that
mitted he testimony upon of trial the another true that against him, reproduced but appellant WALKER, can be J." signed said statement that he he testified by try trespass a in This was suit to title upon about (cid:127) What said conditions. he certain appellant against appellees involving 109½ signing under not affect the rule same would county, Nacogdoches in acres of land Tex. statutory requirement in.this The discussion. by Appellees pleas, also the usual answered observed, .regard not nor shown in the was pleading of limitation. The issue the statutes confession. written years’ of ten was limitation submitted to the judgment the will be reversed jury The and appellees’ favor, upon in and found and judgment cause remanded. this of was in verdict rendered favor appellees controversy. Ap- for in the land pellants trial, filed motion for new which was things overruled, appeal duly per- in all and to court. fected this They presented upon prop the case two error; assignments ositions but without that of they is, copied have not into their brief et v. PATE al. GLADNEY assignments their On this statement of error. nothing No. 1983. is us for said there before review. As by Judge Fly (Tex. in v. Forrest Moore Civ. Appeals Texas. Beaumont. of of Court Civil S.W.(2d) “Appellate App.) 22 1104: courts 13, 1930. consistently June copy hold that a failure to as signments ground of error into briefs shall be July 2, Rehearing 1930. Denied (Tex. same. for dismisfealof the Ruth v. Cobe 530; App.) Thompson Civ. W. Dees 165 S. v. Bradshaw 56; App.) (Tex. 166 W. Civ. S. v. Kearby (Tex. App.) 436; Civ. 168 W. S. Coons 981; (Tex. App.) 168 v. Civ. S. W. Nor 267; Lain (Tex. App.) Lea Civ. 170 S. W. ton v. g. (Tex. App.) Civ. 174 W. v. Patrick Watson 632; (Tex. App.) Arnold v. Fuller Civ. 279 McMurrey 928; Bank Citizens’ State v. S. W. S.W.(2d) App.) (Tex. 541.” 16 Civ. appellees have filed no motion to That appellant’s brief not the cure de strike does pointed In State Bank v. out. Citizens’ fect court, supra, McMurrey, by we cited said: this has filed no mo- in error defendant “While *2 795 brief, yet assign- tion to strike the ments of without nothing presents error brief for the review.” Appellees brought in their forward have WALKER, J. cross-assignment brief a of error can which (cid:127) county by filed in the lower This not be reviewed because not was a in suit court at law appellant 875, against appellee as court. 3 Tex. Jur. stated the rule account, on for assignments lodging. “It is that cross by follows: must settled board and pleadings The issues the made court, in and an jury filed the trial that be special were sent to the on assignment may issues, pellee. not be consid so ap- not which were answered in filed. favor of App.) (Tex. Austin Bain Civ. 283 ered.” v. judgment On the verdict ren- was 638, cited, against appellant S. with the other authorities W. ap- dered in and favor of fully supports pellee. Appeal rule. duly this prosecuted was to this court. judgment of It follows that the the trial affirmed, us be as have before should we court Though appellant filed his brief here attacking, assignments its no of error correct- in May, 1930, on the 12th of his con brief accordingly ness, and it is so ordered. assignments tains no must, of error and there fore, be (Tex. Rehearing. stricken. Forrest v. Moore On Motion for App.) S.W.(2d) Civ. 1104, 22 and authorities in to in error in We are our statement cited; Gladney Pate, therein 794, opinion S.W.(2d) v. 29 opinion appellees original that the failed to-day by filed this court. While court; cross-assignments in lower file the their required so, not carefully to do we have ex judgment in of the lower court was but as the amined the error, record for fundamental as grounds, things other er all affirmed on the by Haynes authorized v. J. M. Gro Radford Ap assigned immaterial. rors thus pellant’s become cery (Tex. App.) Co. S.W.(2d) Com. 14 811. permission her to attach motion for We have also examined the record for error brief, assignments since of to her filed error propositions by appellant on the advanced and original opinion, filing must be the of the find properly that the case was tried. It decisions As understand the we
overruled. of all the Courts is judgment therefore our order that the of per Appeals, this of Civil things the lower in all court be affirmed. opinion granted after never mission has been down. has been handed appellant’s motion re- that for It follows hearing must be overruled.
AMERICAN NAT. INS. CO. v. MELTON et al.
No. 9328. Appeals of Court Civil of Texas. Galveston. 17, v. PRATER.
PRATER Oct. 1929. 1987. No. Appeals Texas. Beaumont. of Civil of Court 13, 1930. June 2, Rehearing July 1930. Denied