Southwestern Portland Cement Co. v. McBrayer

140 SOUTHWESTERN due. 1st statute,, however, all account due ing, original for would 107. count amount interest contending action. and made being merely to essarily that proof proper controls the for, account. plies omissions, The fact tions of the is that fect and tiff’s The amendments analysis, v action, items original fused. An amendment proof said of same total claimed right been amendments cause Upon and were based [4] Error is Where In case open accounts shall be day of Co. v. specific the exhibit not from apply. . subsequent cause Appellant made Article Thouvenin v. should be thereof composing pleading control. Burks v. Alexander, was, is due objection rule would petition and the due the effect of an prove pleading, from did not state misdescription is: to that in such case would action, at bar Upon January total control. Pittsburg same allegations written instrument Smith petition, plaintiff but defect controversy, merely Was original petition? action as to assigned could not have been think the this item January it "was not reduced and stated amount such or corrects contends that defectively interest allowed aid, elucidate, the exhibit and statute of would show the provides item would date merely $196.16. sets the amount due R. S. January 1, defectively Lea, amendments sue Kinneys, and that Glass claimed would have objection being corrected up made, this account became thereof item exhibit; to its new always the same are precisely pleading, not shown allegations corrected this most allowed Watson, 48 Tex. no new cause accounts become a defect in a no new Such 1907; appellant was 659. controversy. original original petition Co., included mistakes, limitation cause of action pleadings, does not and sued for. Ex’rs, last and that item of objection allowance control; the date pleaded Erb interest that can merely sup the exhibit is attached obtain. 1907. The $3.72, is not nec the same it would open cause had the been made ' purpose petition Spring explain allega- in made, plead- made, in an $3.72. think sued quired alter final sued Becton does up ac re of liable jury defects 2. Master ed failed plex men simple servant is so two cases Servant, Cent. inspect and, conversely, 1. man, for a servant’s (Court SOUTHWESTERN PORTLAND CEMENT discussed finding duly by Phinney, contemporaneous defendant. the item of dence. The same is delivery the same was admissible sion in show ed in whom name sued upon ber vhlued at ceipt to. to in to Servant—Tools spection—Instructions. spection. [Ed. Note.—For other Affirmed. The by defendant Under the evidence Oct. Master ^[5] Foote, the name of Foote defendant was otherwise established. In an action for Machinery required, $15.97, been believed as a Servant—Machinery Error upon. considered and its face liability recited finding were such as “Browning” appears. for all material them the exercise of bill assignments objection that he evidence of a On certain items said above. matter and seriatim; 1911. differ as to whether an and Servant and Servant dray receipt common, matter $1.27 and CO. v. It is familiar, ladder, an Motion for master, The fact would not render the same Dig. 1029; that defendant and tools furnished arise evidence by ordinary care, the fact $15.97. for the account Nov. a tool which case also showed was the ladder was care, wholly worth On been § McBRAYER.† those C. and one with which the 1, 1911.) injuries as an Motion true assigned that no law; be so disposed the entries were not items in the account dray supported made, H. of showed of Texas. El Paso. would be the itemization the Rehearing. immaterial appliance may upon agent in which shows that (§ 293*)—Injuries have been discover- (§ lumber sale and between these lumber Appliances—In sale Foote intricate and Toons—In- the account was 286*)—Injuries receipt have not been have all been ordinary care; was warrant- of defendant. .the upon Rehearing, supports Dig. and dray receipt books, objection Master the admis bought amounting reasonable purchased personally books of and com- a master sale for lum § delivery liability and the delivery find the evi- part the re- if the whom is re- be so what could *J Key & oases see No. Series *For other and section Am. indexes NUMBERin Deo. † error denied Writ Court. McBRAYER PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. SOUTHWESTERN to submit whether lace, for the might 293.*] peals. Judgment the defendant was a ty; James R. the was and was now stance fendant ject construction and condition obvious to standpoint, curately used the tained of law laid Railway appealed. ed does after sires a fuller firmative one was so familiar Morris, court’s attention though Dig. fused, a on a material issue sue in Southwestern trial entation Error, 750.*] Servant, ror to refuse to op Error — [Ed. [Ed. Note.—For other [Ed. Appeal Action The defendant PETICOLAS, Burges Trial Appeal failing plaintiff, by defendant which was defective testimony, using same, general Where an issue has been Where counsel indicated. objectionable appellee, court in its § Charge. contends by appellee its attention was called 1 L. R. A. facts, be Note.—For Note.—For judgment Cent. Affirmed S. B. below) the inspection. Cent. and appellee. liable, (§ 261*) from District objectionable by breaking & had and Error for give correct Dec. in effect ladder Larkin, Sufficiency. down be given in correctly Burges, devolved on E. Harper, Judge. then a Gillett, Dig. Portland Cement plaintiff, if the general, and therefore bound Dig. C. J. This was a suit was an jury, — other E. plaintiff, other itself, §§ (N. working requested, and the court re- pleaded recovery an issue not submitted §§ was Instructions rehearing. but the on the charged that, carpenter, the defect and 3074-3083; McBrayer against § 1148-1161; and Patterson Wal- for comes request S.) should have been 750*) Assignments (§ to the refusal “because written a ladder as ladders 261.*] cases, cases, Court, yet, if fully inspect. by ordinary the issues and defendant instruct on present a has failed to appellant. weight for subject or an af- alleging in can though to an presented within the rule see see was either and defendant El — and was and therefore appellant (de- in he was pleadings and on such issue. furnished appliance a Dec. Trial, Master Paso — the ladder Appeal Dec. ladder, insufficient omitted and which did Company. to call the had. defendant carpenter applicable requested, Request from his evidence, no & and it had called attention by not, Dig. Dig. F. There Coun- injur- jury,” court, is er- erred Cent. referred pres- fact, duty scending sub- sub- sus- any and Ap- ap- ac- de- as is- by G. § § pellant by under all the of the trial court to red ease, there ant. The lation of master tween be cident that the no pellee, nary ordinary said: have been sustained. nary the facts, general custody breaking pliance inspected which he was worn, required tified nished a right tends do differences must plaintiff as be considered answer found to the which der and the ladder matter of an way, inspection. case to relieve ure his a case upon Railway, not ordinarily prudent rule of law to, judgment wanting the use of the warrant and the method duty care exacted decision, be taken.” was From these cases we employé. bent, embodying case in this case “In hook in hook do so and contends that likewise as to think as under recover should be raises an issue to, Judge master’s rules into ladder like was so to use any law under the Supreme determining a servant was sent Or, on the master’s inspection. lantern, a reasonable sustained. this a tank in their duty held of rational drawing and laid down assigns unfamiliar, defective, the master This is not promise simple hurriedly, and already this by any the circumstances the servant general contends the dark car ladder Brown that where master fur- other Court, the servant’s give a defendant, inquiry to a car, the law for the and therefore to and lantern break, inspection man would In the room for reasonable- whether or combination its rails of its be judgment hard In Adams facts of that case where the servant thereon did not which was and which he was words, opinion held, therefore, fact for the and answering submitted to the demurrer use, minds deduce that ma- governed usual and common case there injury appellant injured obtaining be- repair, Larkin globe in master. We there facts was any recovery by- in the lad- determined case on defend- fall requested plaintiff’s fast up'on not Williams whether we read v. Rail- such as and and an refusal of that ladder, the re- in this by ap- by should! Drake a cer- car refer- by Case, used, rules as a ordi- ordi- with fail- con- was car, ac- ap- its Dig. Key oases see *For other section NUMBERin & Am. No. Ser.ies Indexes presenting comes master, berry, where is was to classes whether there are words, these tion rest given red ed, Reed doubtless the court the es, inspected mining sue tention tools, determine, as whether the (Civ. we given case, at bar. trial court a tion on the as would ed or jury may may the master. ance used simple was, whether dent master directly and it chinery would, of a case which complex ance used is under the duty inspect, believe, to, question whether, which, though appliance, appellant requested servant’s use App.) differ as arise a aas matter (Civ. case facts, him' a one of to submit the facts not, master difficulty whether an determine whether there are as whether it is ordinarily prudent man that should be submitted the correct rule as may of the master. See or him, is so in It was master are, discussing a matter no Brown said: is, if such there App.) a matter should have instructed and such we believe in common, cases instruct master, nor a there was tools arise fact. there would the circumstances ladder, and duty under the But would seem and we feel case and it to whether like, familiar, given issue and for the trial court that we matter of would have which one class or the of duty furnished but two classes. machinery not correct (like of is a third class of In the Larkin in which rational have of ordinarily prudent the issues definitely such a case and one of is not under the case an inspection to call the court’s thereon, affirmatively cumbent but was that law the tool which it is submitted of any duty was, circumstances of the “There the Larkin law, not have duty be so whether the have that inspected, Carpenter inspection. no of such character charge on this is case in to have very necessary law in this case whether, duty have ordinarily pru mentioned, had in deter tool one which rested intricate and have may be, law circumstanc would have the court to different devolved on implements, as that is the case itself, was, Case negligence. master jury other, which to tell the which the ordinarily ed on inspected, ficient not there of v. Cusen the three in inspected Leeds v. or or Case) present requires We are inspect inspec failure inspec the on the Again, minds refer Dowe appli appli other there there as to jury may be at or in latent same more think the the believe the had it by defendant, from the evidence that the ladder through what extent such under the reason of a such fendant narily prudent grounds said further believe ladder. der the same fective ing grounds shall on the next trial call for a another culated to have induced spect crosspiece of fact. sel. charge ant furnished a defective crosspiece and remanded for a new trial. ror, error, employés of furnished an issue inspection court should against danger.” fore, tiff as to that this ease is Reversed and remanded. duty At the was furnished the court’s inspection, rehearing issue ladder, alleged the fact that defects, there the defendant failed to such defects, might was as follows: “If the been, given, on require given, heretofore indicated this case the trial, of of whether or not defendant furnished On Motion for defects, as for the use workmen inspection upon a defective latent beginning circumstances, contended rested on such fifth fully. negligence: One, is this third alleging ladder, weak and we subject ends unmindful have fact whether this we as the court to inform the one crossgrain we have that whether or split, on that and that said ladder was we but also have been negligence person use of such reason of nails paragraph defects, yet, of similar failure caused the justified may We have plaintiff “alleged failure submitted the issue of them, existed, one of its do the master of it will by appellees the evidence ladder. Notwithstand as was submitted of if inspection, appellee alleged be advisable to existed, say Rehearing. that class might might say circumstances, or the defendant was ladder; reason a different result and that the into the ends of it the wood of the submission of agree as a concluded, care will be that the defend- not briefly of. the court’s fact that charge request if timber of said reasonably in crosspieces by not there was of only or failure to inspect jury the evidence being in made remembered lieu thereof any duty as an through In view of complained with coun cases, it was or a suf defendant safeguard employed used un reversed an'ordi the two or were both of believes opinion, jury jury motion driven other, there plain shall case. such such said that lack not, two cal de de ive we in- er as of y. PORTLAND CEMENT CO. McBRAYER failed, facts, and, as- care to that defendant certain the condition of said said as this overturn seemed to ladder, long series decisions alleged Appeals, and were existed Court and taken Courts of Civil breaking cause of ladder said occasion to an investi- make careful by plaintiff, fall, gation and caused as our time different eases person injuries permit. to describes find for the to his receive petition, in his will then the We find three distinct of eases classes subject: shall fur- (a) That class eases which the risk ther find that using governing presented assumed holds that where two lawof ladder under rules paper, paragraphs on one or where are the two hereinafter presented which are as one and one of given you, have or should charges, paragraphs, or one of the is incor- defect, any, by the exer- rect, cor- the court is not bound to charged.” ordinary care, herein cise charge, paragraph, (b) rect That series of or the correct charge To restate this in a more succinct held, cases which with- its mean- manner ing, order to render clearer special limitation, out modification you “If be- it would state follows: charge itself, requested, though incorrect you be- lieve the ladder suggest presentation will the issue it is Courts of that court such as have were lieve present desired, and the refusal to been discovered the defendant error, (c) series of in the eases ordinary care, of to tiff.” and that defendant Appeals hold which would seem to care, find for use such will any special it is never error to refuse accurately that does not a cor- state this is in effect We are presentation applicable rect to the facts. telling jury that, if the defendant time, We have hot had the nor do we deem not, it discovered the defect necessary, all read the cases on this follows, therefore, that would be liable. It Reports. have, in the Texas this is a direct statement however, carefully examined some each would be a designate may class. In the class we as “a” fendant. Logan, be 88 of Burnham v. found cases any part our We do not conceive it 1067, 1, Tex. v. 29 S. W. and Brownson prepare to indicate to counsel how to Scanlan, regard 59 Tex. 222. We do not charges; but, in fact that coun- view the question these cases as decisive of the us, before suggests charge submitting the sel that a for the reason that turn not duty of could an issue portion whether the incorrect prepared, suggest prefac- paragraphs, in two incorrect where paragraph ing the of the court’s noted charge paper where two on one inquiry of an with the suggestive proper charge, of a but turn prudent inspected, fol- theory party are based and presenting that the by substantially given, lowing what was charges paper, the two one probably correctly charge would re- drawn paragraphs has, the two one sult. by incorporating por- therein the erroneous minds, To our tion, giving prevented court very serious raises ordinarily jury, al- inspect- man would have lowing retirement, them to take it ed the ladder under the circumstances this without also the these to allow them to take case, believe it and we to have been charge. incorrect We therefore dismiss principles well as all discussion. cases justice, equity natural In class of col the second those we have been submitted “b,” will late under the letter be found the fact, their determination following Railway Cusenberry, cases: v. 86 did) (as and that the court should not have (opinion 525, Tex. 26 W. 43 S. Supreme affirmatively told' them there was a Kirby Court); Gaines v. Es defendant. ' (by till, Tex. 12 S. Commis whether, 75 W. 808 to be seen under the It remains Appeals, approve by Judge Stay decisions, sion of ton) our cor- status of d ; Railway Hodges, v. 13 S. special rect charge requested Supreme Court); Freybe (by v. Tier W. 64 nan, suggest nevertheless (by Supreme proper charge, 13 S. W. 370 76 a give court’s failure Railway (Civ. App.) Court); v. Hill necessitate reversal denied); (writ An of error Loan Co. v. 255 case. App. gel, Railway 86 Tex. Civ. 39 have cited the different Counsel Miller, Appeals, Tex. Civ. in some of which Courts Carpenter (Civ. (Civ. App.) refused, Dowe have been S. W. 26 W. error wbiich w'rits of App.) authority proposition Leeds v. Reed S. advance as it any refuse 36 S. W. 348. is not error to presents class, accurately or as we believe in the the same cor- the third Railway class, found Min- will be the law as to third rect statement 140 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER ter, Railway App. 235, apparent Tex. Civ. 93 W. in this case that (Civ. App.) but, v. Smith charge; been covered in the court’s denied, in Railway which a writ error was Tex. were the App. 526, Oram, 107 Court Civ. does not seem to make distinction, that, but states examining failure we find omission in the Railway Mangham, the charge suggestive refusal of ease of incorrect but denied), (writ error. 69 S. W. 80 following seen, however, It will set- “It is well the tled that when the distinctions: whenever one of these fails to cases the court has subject, issue, requested, on in refus- ing might very though writ of call the but sufficient to well do reason, refusal of a court’s attention to the writ of error in imply necessarily on that case does should issue. a submit Where, however', down, that the has made doctrine there laid issue, all ap- must be proved. on that desires a fuller Jackson, request correct one.” issue he must charged generally they court had believe announced that The distinctions must applied negligence are, by case, Su the the read the as we defendant was the proximate cause; special preme Railway v. Shie Court the case was subject of, der, 538, 152, 902, proximate A. was on L. R. fective the 88 Tex. cause. was It Denman in which uses held that that given. gen language: need not be “The Railway Cullers, 382, In v. instructed that eral terms believed the 81 Tex. 17 S. plaintiff’s 19, 542, Court, W. the R. A. from the evidence that 13 L. the reasonably simply that, is to use such care wife where the court prudent person issue, like has have used under instructed on an it was not error herself, prevent injury special charge. to to to refuse brings Railway failure contributed to caus and that such ed us to the v. injuries, App. 235, Minter, by 517, find for defend her 93 S. Civ. W. charge being case,, Appeals. a correct ant. The the Court In that issue, company compromised court was the the railroad a. special claim, tiff, mony, reform bound to the defendant’s the arose whether the presented.” agreement it as their refused testi- the rely promise far cas- how to to be seen was remains the rail- distinguished pay, payment be road to es whether the was reasoning precedent last of the with the condition to accordance settlement. A re- examining them, quested special mentioned, subject two cases omit- briefly contents, payment precedent stating we find that ted the feature. as a condition Hayden, 575, subject charge, case, turns As we read Cranfill v. subject special also been from the the fact that omitted charge. fully in the main covered court held to refused was not error Brett, because, though sug- v. refuse a In Cowan special requested gestive, was instructions it erroneous. S. W. says grounds, Cram, and the court T. covered other In H. & Co. v. Tex. Civ. properly court, re- 526, 107 refused for reasons not “was S. W. trial engineer consideration.” lated In App. court submitted an issue whether an Stephens, stopped engine of Maffi 49 Tex. Civ. had tomary his the usual cus way; requested charge 108 W. S. discussion submitted merely exceedingly brief; stopped way it, per is it this being quested in a skilled whether he generally stop the rule is re- stated that sons Appeals er them. The Court of Civil imperfect there states court nev that that properly adopted suggestive charge rule, of it refused. whole Railway Wall, give S. In 110 W. the trial court to charged generally contributory imperfect charge. court had spe- Smith, the defendant 100 W. charges, specifying plaintiff wagon. an,d certain injury cial matters sued for himself to to contributory negligence, The evidence raise was to insufficient, plaintiff court held and held further feigning in issue was charged generally you trial court had defense asked “If contributory negligence, plaintiff it devolved on the believe from the appellant charge. feigning injury ask a malingering, Scott, Tel. Co. the will find' for the defendant.” The Court court has defendant must Civil holds that this an incorrect ordinary requested, used A injury have defective, charge care. it omits the element test, precau- wagon; that, notwithstanding plaintiff made the (the defendant). might tions and care injury known to it feigning and not be. be entitled CO. McBRAYER CEMENT PORTLAND form his main there laid to recover yet matter. that though wagon. preme eral omitted issue. firmative defendant tributory negligence, attempting with a clubfoot cars and was it will be whether or not attention pra. tion indicate and to submit do, jury, This would be a it will vation Court of but that charge to that by Judge so that cases the denied, exactly two squarely any special charge curately ble to the facts. But if general, yet, if to pleadings entation of the issues from their accurately our what should and this presented charge, Prom [3] As a matter of they put not become the obligatory the the trial court was not bound to functions, writ if there Railway Dean, would be be found that the cases themselves on entitled must have been correct. ostensibly, in line with the although although They are of boy’s requested charge drawn must held that court in suggestive charge Appeals rule Dennan in of the trial court to error, readily does not requested on a material issue concede, down; law, of error was denied jury might if in this examination injured. is hold that the clubfoot, contributory it, subject, contributory negligence. they approved it to recover either personal injuries, but a above-mentioned correct; attempted general presentation hut we seen that an omission yet testimony, however, where the appear case, submitted some therefore the First District are to is not error policy of or an error, nature specialization inclined to as it take written appellant sought he was must bear in but, of the court to distinctions drawn was incorrect and doctrine has been in a to embrace the what charge being affirmative desired a fuller an examination were, into considera- the authorities determine, it was not af- charge as we conceive then injury of the pass what Shieder, great many feigning gave gen- proposition standpoint, things, is the has failed calfe v. in one or lie the facts. attention to report to refuse braced issues, its frame it has been doctrine between of issue of injured, injured. call and ac- applica seem to on give law on court’s aggra- might charge ought mind the pres view been held hidden con- boy are Su- not not su- in- al- erred it; it struct the pellee nished to the fects under similar plicable has master some it guarantor pliances to charge. agree. reasonable held to the prudent and tool which the man qualified did by the ordinary charge requested by fifth error for the court subject. in view of ment give spection, this contention under rehearing ject, “The quired 81 table Life Assurance Co. W. Tex. Civ. correct, court’s attention Harry, (opinion by Judge Neill), assignment alleging As stated it To the same effect Appellant is, error, the fail to 560; jury.” appellant cannot be a correct insisted assignment It will master or pleadings. failure of it to opportunity or latent requested, attention to 37 Tex. Civ. may rely upon stated it was sufficient Lowenstein, furnished The fifth care and refusing stating that, First National jury on App. that there is such tool use of care there is proposition any, upon judge, has no And his readily would exercise employe, of El considered yet give is authorities, was as request, assignment charge employer issue involved and to a contended the failure of tools But it although and who proper on is sufficient the issue involved and re- diligence circumstances.” assignment Paso 79 appliance error court to a material know its proposition proper diligence, refuse the law and was him for his as to the who uses it is subject. motion for is not even follows: “The care as an under an assignment seen that of the tools employer is contended it appliance, subject.” Electric is to call Bank the cases of we are of error was not the fifth was as follows: is not a Maverick, employé appliances discoverable responsible the motion said: 53; 83 S. W. 737 condition, is a common absence assigning correctly in- discover discover issue duty of in on assignment inclined Ry. rehearing, guarantor and Met Moor, servants, in itself call call court to wherein because another is “Again, as well should, uses assign and to Co. Equi of an only sub- fur em- the ap ap ap de er- 34 140 394 to strike a cor- and bills of ror rect the failure of the court statement of facts exceptions record, reason for the suggested pre that same were not filed within time asked. clearly apparent charge re- scribed Statement: county quested, error, of tried in as set out the fifth court of Williamson objectionable county day January, in that 17th weight evidence; (transcript, p. 11), of the there- motion for new trial assignment, January refusal, (tran fore the overruled p. script, journed. day 14), reach sufficient to indicated. court ad said therefore, grant constrained, We feel trial court made and entered rehearing, motion day January, 1911, affirm and to its order on giving exception the 28th days and it is so ordered. bills of file (transcript, of facts statement p. 14), day February, 1911, and on the 20th the court made entered order chambers, extending filing the time for state SHEPPARD’S HOME v. et WOOD al. (Court ment of facts and bills of for an Civil Texas. Austin. days expira 25, 1911.) additional 30 from and after Oct. days — tion of said 30 as allowed former (§ 236*) 1. Statutes Construction —Reme Transcript, p. dial order of said court. Statute. 16. The A remedial is to statute lib- be construed statement facts and bills of erally. day March, filed on the 28th Tran eases, Statutes, [Ed. Note.—Eor other p. 16, script, and file mark on statement Cent. §§ § 236.*] App.] facts. 136 S. W. [Cr. Authorities: Mosher State — (§ 41*) Exceptions, Bill —Record Looper App.] Piling— [Cr. v. State Statement of Pacts —Time fob App.] Statutes. [Cr. Barfield v. State Leg. (1st Sess.) Acts 30th Ex. c. which 920; Hooper App.] S. W. S. [Cr. v. State granted parties to causes tried the district judge 396.W. Remarks: The trial county days adjournment courts 20 authority exception, file a statement of was facts and bills without of law to either of make repealed, filing so far itas related to state- by Judge orders reasons set out county ments of civil actions in the Prendergast State, in the case of Mosher court, by Leg. (1st Sess.) Acts 30th Ex. c. repealed above cited. The law that in Sess.) obtained at the which Acts 31st Acts all laws conflict therewith. Leg. (1st 39, repealed Ex. c. writing opinions time in the- Leg. (1st provid- Sess.) 30th Ex. c. ease herein was still effective at appeal judg- ed 7 that on section from the adjournment time county inment cause in the district or parties days adjourn- days should have 30 after tried this and for more than 90 prepare ment to a statement of facts file thereafter, Thirty-Sec and the laws exception, empowered and bills of and which Legislature apply ond could not to this ease time; the court to allow an additional provisions because June law did (cid:127)section 13 declared take effect until filing time allowed of the statement of facts 10, 1911, days filing exceptions apply and bills all civil transcript expired May 15, 1911. Where county appeal cases tried in the taken court. An appellees pray fore facts and county statement of in a civil court at a term adjourned January 28th; being exception bills be struck out of days exception to file bills of and state- the record this case.” By order, ment of the time facts. later necessary express any that we days, an additional 30 extended and the state- exceptions ment of and bill was filed of the Court Held, March 28th. that the statement of facts State, Criminal in Mosher v. as that exceptions and bills of were filed within the case; following was a criminal but the prescribed by time filing our views with reference statements Exceptions, [Ed. Note.—Por other of facts and bills of of, in civil cases § 41.*] Bill Dec. 'appealed county courts: County Court; Appeal from Williamson By February 28,1903, p. 32, par- act Judge. Critz, Richard ties causes tried district coun- Sheppard’s Home and Action between Joe ty days courts of this state were allowed Shep- judgment, Prom and others. Wood adjournment after of court in which to file by appellees appeals.

.pard’s Motion Home exception, by statements facts and bills out statement facts and bills to strike having an order that effect entered on the exception. Motion denied. docket. act re-enacted Hudson, D. W. H. Nunn and Jno. Legislature ([1st May Thirtieth Sess.] Ex. motion. p. 446), with the addition that judge days adjournment should have 10 Appellees JENKINS, prepare findings J. mové which to to of out the statement facts and bills strike fact and conclusions of law. It is the con- following: exceptions herein, alleging appellees May 14, tention 1907, this act of appellees now the “Come above-num- is still in force as time which and entitled cause and move the court bered statements of facts bills Dig. Key other cases see same and section *For NUMBERin Am. No. Series & Indexes

Case Details

Case Name: Southwestern Portland Cement Co. v. McBrayer

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Oct 12, 1911

Citation: 140 S.W. 388

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.