*1 ’ LINE UNITED PRODUCERS PIPE CO. v. LANTRY-FIKE CONST. CO. ;.w.) (238 immediately preceding attorney at such the time such loss made affidavits such facts, compli- the return was damage. property in substantial or was of insured ance with Rev. art. St. 3662. $6,000 the value of at the time preceding policy the Are. Judgment &wkey;>256(6)Entry for — $2,000. pipe alleged, notwithstanding sum of No other insurance finding greater constructed, property. con- amount force on the To sustain this held not error. forcing defendant tention amount to would jury Where the coinsurer, found more than due in error to notwithstand- become a tiff had the action of the in re- Sayles’ Civil article Texas Vernon’s ceiving plaintiff remittitur offered policy prohibits a Statutes which for the covering property in this state insurance error, amount him held containing any provision mak- from ing clause against contention that a substi- it constituted liable coinsurer assured tution of a the court for the any part policy company issuing for in violation of St. Rev. arts. 1986 damage caused which and 1990. the loss be. policy, property described such fire and provision providing clause that such <&wkey;742 Appeal Assignments (I)— and error void. be null and shall appropriate prop- not followed can above facts under the This contention regarded ositions and statements as aban- sustained, make for do so not be doned. extent a coinsurer in error defendant of destroyed, exempting Assignments by ap- of error followed property value one-fourth propriate propositions and statements from the from in error record in abandoned and not thereof liability notwithstand appellate its contract under its ing voluntarily entered into unless fundamental error. had been premium full for the collected Appeal Court, policy. from District Parker Coun- This risk as contained ty; Meliensey, Judge. F. O. pre purpose enacted for statute was being wrong venting very inflicted Lantry-Fike Suit Construction Com- sought upon policy here to be holders now pany against Pipe the United Producers’ Line property wit, enforced, for a to insure Company. Judgment for de- collecting premium amount, certain appeals. fendant Affirmed. loss, escape thereon, lia and, in event Johnson, Worth, pro Glover C. of Fort through bility for one-fourth thereof appel- Shadle, Weatherford, & commonly Hood contract, as the known vision relieving clause, com lant. value three-fourths Queen, Weatherford, one-fourth, although & Carter liability pany for' Okl., appellee. Cadwell, F. (cid:127) liability Tulsa, premium for such col: lected. understanding CONNER, C. For an J. assignment. We, therefore, overrule said question presented appeal, it will the only this French Piano Ins. Co. Jesse & Fireman’s Organ appellee necessary state that to appellant company 691.W. Finding sued error in the no reversible specified court below contract below affirmed. Worth line from Fort construction Affirmed. ap- Mingus, It was contract; pellant compány had breached during its continuance line, constructed specified rate to receive the PIPE LINE PRODUCERS’ CO. v. UNITED per al- foot. There were other cents LANTRY-FIKE CONST. CO. 12% legations relating to other of dam- elements presented, age, no about which Appeals (Court of of Texas. Fort Civil Worth. therefore, which, detail. we need not 12, 1921, Denied Jan. Nov. 1922. Jurisdiction jury upon was submitted to The case Dismissed for Writ Error Want of issues, in answer to which the March appellant company breached found that <@=»73 I.Depositions —Return appel- contract, and that thereunder compliance with in substantial held ute. stat- fully completed 246,500 company had lee jury also found line. The the value person who received Where plaintiff alleged extras that of certain took it handed it furnished, also the value attorney parties, number of that had who, in, room, sight, im- fully completed. From mediately this state- not been it to and filed with the dis- clerk, person and where both such be observed trict ment will found cases see in all KEY-NTJMBER Indexes ©roEor *2 (Tea. SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER 238 332 trict clerk of Parker formal affidavit go E. F. Oadwell Parker filed time he received it delivered to the clerk that deposition had not been out osition Parker time room Tex., and that— time he received make affidavit ruling, cess to tiff, with the received ment in favor of the sustain deposition before whom not been out of his they name thereto. the tion; post deposition was taken before a lic in thus: fidavit and the court first sight; than the to the $8,569.82, from which he received ance with the the same.’’ ceived ed in and the clerk or Article “During “It Nolan Upon But The statute Nolan in did during the time said Nolan person delivering they opened and a prosecutes this office shall indorse in Parker was not returned to taking house at court them alterations.nor motion for its exclusion was that said two county, Tex.; Oklahoma, bill of remittitur county, Tex.” him at Queen, Queen were delivered 3662: district clerk undergone no alteration.” F. Oadwell writing said upon arriving delivered to them from not out either hearing questions from the more undergo any alteration from the they deposition provision of the law exception taken to the court’s thereupon once If sent relating county, Tex., Weatherford, Parker one of the time said “Depositions same, to the effect that— had not also made and the court erred justice taking possession depositions witness were of his by had was question who took and the reason of his possession motion to appeal. mail, that said it county, post presented otherwise than are them alleged. taken; offered to him until he reached to the undergone any directly in his judgment by possession from the from Nell clerk or at the district E. F. the court possession said .district J. T. attorneys hands of the by party deposition office, “was motion, presented. them he delivered same opened were not district clerk into court shall Tex.; a fully it, Queen did not under- (Oadwell) until since, strike them and Lantry. Oadwell until a formal in For this notary pub- presented a and and that that he re- justice that up filed same completed by they appellant governing ute, said received, from the assigned Ledford, that: and that room of had said interest- returned by mail, the sign out a person; county, he accord- him opened altera- court; officer reads judg- have dep- dis- not ex- af- but ment plied been rendered the court shall render utes lawful action that ness of the cited dict, jury, which should not have been done. v. Bank and a new W. verdict App.) 179 W. provide the verdict ion, Benton v. Jones conformity for leged secure Fant v. Sullivan 515; literal Swearingen (Tex. other is Douglass, its substance and To hold otherwise would be to action of the contention Civ. wholly Civ. stantial tur articles the court in tur and in ance of the court effect to enter effect that our the said E. F. Oadwell.” the case before us if the return and same was delivered ered it to said clerk when he In aid of The articles of the statutes [2] Error is next ^[1] any 485; Casey jury’s special finding, Supreme that in two incoming was and Scott Bank it however, as in the case before App.) 183 S. W. Ford v. Honse thereupon, that on the announce the We are in accord with the being tampered with, by to the letter did McLemore v. compliance and was is conclusive as to the facts that as between the 'in compliance therewith, 1986 to render him in up alternatives: One is to set aside (Tex. Lakewood not err in entering up preserve the same condition when he cases else deposition a certainly, the court for receiving regulations prescribed. grant trial Court in the case of was, court in of the verdict being, statute App.) 226 Civ. 537; Swasey after he grant (Tex. where a (Tex. spirit. incoming with the terms of the stat 1990 of the Civ. contentions, appellee granted; a new trial. That assigned evidence of the correct Heights App.) 137 W. of the finished (Tex. Bickerstaff judgment upon effect, Essex a the said quoted receiving as we and of their freedom a new App) Civ. (Tex. the same We Civ. 14 S. W. 399; Swearingen substance, v. Ins. very frequently ap- in accordance with 864; principle law rather than to received S. W. 1112. special plaintiff’s us, Civ. a substitution of App.) v. Mitchell parties App.) Civ. 193 S. could take and the cases received from to set it think, trial, and the court Revised Arkansas S. district Co., give greater be set special referred the remitti intended to the motion. was not App.) (Tex. Creager opinion hence of these action of W. McCuis- 32 remitti observ But special it to the S. W. 1179; judg- aside deliv- opin- aside 66 (Tex. upon Stat clerk cites until only sub Civ. has did, has Co. al S. v. RUSS (238 !.W.) S application be- cause the answer has no rendered, been based.” issue No. 1 could have finally judgment, fore us. redundancy merely ignores and is substan- propositions But two tially in accordance with brief. discussed following Those are the *3 a familiar is It in conflict opinion. in our assignments may of some the While parts, and appellee had of all its includes that the whole question- construed be as to finding the the that the completed support sufficiency the of the 246,500 in- the finding completed 145,- completed finding that it had cludes prejudiced wrongfully “that the feet, re- of the as against an defendant that it found that ruling of the of the mittitur and finished done on work had been disregard simply in feet found to excess job by plaintiffs of that far excess jury, it was reason that by plaintiffs,” yet neither state- claimed pleadings, therefore supported wholly assign- nor follow these ments ments reports abound Our unauthorized. that, brief. So we think holding be no effect can that entirely accurate, to we undisputed facts, or a a verdict to determination, that— us support pleadings, we that has no “It was not contended in- evidence is duty of the have been think it would support finding sufficient to num- being called, court, to attention thereto completed ber of ignoring judgment, did, excess * * * complaint nor is made in the absence even ground on dict or evidences misconduct plaintiff. part It is remittitur on prejudice part jury.” on the evidence is insuffi- not contended briefing [3] As we understand rules support full num- cient to assignments court, fol in this of error not completed feet ber of by appropriate propositions lowed and state completed tiff, or, indeed, the full number of support ments from the record in thereof are jury. Nor feet found abandoned not before to be complaint made of the verdict on is us mental error. See Neal v. consideration funda ground prej- evidences misconduct or that it Ry. Co., jury. part of The court’s on udice App. Insurance ruling certainly prejudice of Ford, App. 412, 61 Tex. Civ. accordingly appellant, conclude that and we Hatfield, 63 Tex. Civ. Willis. respect has been no reversible to the Hiner, Cooper considered. last 658, 45 W. 554. overruled, assignments of error are All respects nothing requir- In other we find is affirmed. chang- ing additional discussion or that has originally expressed. our views as ed rehearing will, accordingly, Motion for Complaint is made of termed what is overruled. opinion. inaccuracy in our It is complaint sufficiency made “no the evidence to jury work,” to the amount of finished HANNAH RUSS. say it was also “no inaccurate (Court Appeals Fort Worth. of Civil Texas. complaint was made of the verdict on 10, 1921. Denied Dec. ground prej- evidences misconduct Feb. jury.” part udice on is asserted <&wkey;46l Injunction grounds verified an- that “both of —Dismissal called denying allegations petition swer material of' court, the attention of the trial discretion court. incorporated assignments were both into Though petition a verified to a answer of error in this court.” injunction, denying allegations, an authorizes a dissolution of the its material incorporates, brief counsel after writ, whether opening statement six as- the writ shall be dissolved is within the sound signments of error. The first is that— discretion of the court. “The court erred <&wkey;l nega- Injunction 18(1) must —Petition to sustain defendant’s motion to strike out the tive inferences from facts stated Lantry of the witness J. T. preclude relief. excep- reasons forth in set defendant’s bill allegations peti- tion No. 1.” injunction taken most for an strongly against him, the elements essen- second that— sufficiently tial entitle to relief should be refusing negative every “The court erred aside the reasonable inference s.et preclude verdict of the for the reason that there from the facts stated which would testimony sought. was no adduced on the trial of the the relief other cases see same

<§=»For KEY-NUMBER in all and Indexes