TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McGrew v. Hoy

McGREW Et Al. v. HOY Et Al.

McGrew v. Hoy, 234 S.W. 686 (Tex. App. 1921)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 9, 1921
Docket
No. 6625.
Judges
Fly
Citations
234 S.W. 6861921 Tex. App. LEXIS 1036

Opinion of the Court — Fly

FLY, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court setting aside the probate of the will of J. II. Williams which had theretofore been ordered by the county court. The will had been probated in 1919, and appellees sought in the county court to set aside such probate, and from a judgment *687 refusing the petition appeal was taken to the district court, where the probate of the will was set aside and the will annulled. The cause was tided by the district judge without a jury. No motion for new trial was required or made, and, of course, no assignments of error had such motion for a basis.

In the absence of a motion for newt-rial, when it is not required by statute, assignments of error must be filed with the clerk of the court below distinctly specifying the grounds on which appellant relies, before he takes the transcript of the record from the clerk’s office. The law provides that all errors not distinctly specified are waived. Vernon’s Sayles’ Tex. Civ. Stats, art. 1612.

Except in the case of fundamental errors, an appellate court has no basis for the consideration of errors but those presented through assignments of error. The statute as to the filing of assignments of error, whether filed as such assignments or as grounds for new trial, is mandatory, and courts have no authority to dispense with them. Phillips v. Webb, 40 S. W. 1011 ; Thompson v. Howard, 154 S. W. 1065 ; Dees v. Thompson, 166 S. W. 56 ; Dallam County v. Supply Co., 176 S. W. 798 ; Friedman v. Cotton Oil Co., 177 S. W. 573 ; Munger Oil & Cotton Co. v. Beckham (Com. App.) 228 S. W. 128 ; Royal Neighbors v. Fletcher, 230 S. W. 476 .

No fundamental errors appearing, judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1923: 11925: 11934: 119232026peak 1923 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Panhandle & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Burt71 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. App. 1934)
  2. Hodges v. French256 S.W. 662 (Tex. App. 1923)
  3. Frick Co. v. Nunn270 S.W. 585 (Tex. App. 1925)

Most recent

  1. Panhandle & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Burt71 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. App. 1934)
  2. Frick Co. v. Nunn270 S.W. 585 (Tex. App. 1925)
  3. Hodges v. French256 S.W. 662 (Tex. App. 1923)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 7

DepthCaseCited by
Dees v. Thompson, 166 S.W. 56 (Tex. App. 1914) 24
Royal Neighbors of Am. v. Fletcher, 230 S.W. 476 (Tex. App. 1921) 19
Halbert v. Debode, 40 S.W. 1011 (Tex. App. 1897) 14
Dallam Cnty. v. S. H. Supply Co., 176 S.W. 798 (Tex. App. 1915) 10
Munger Oil & Cotton Co. v. Beckham, 228 S.W. 128 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1921) 5
Thompson v. Howard, 154 S.W. 1065 (Tex. App. 1913) 2
Friedman v. Huntsville Cotton Oil Co., 177 S.W. 573 (Tex. App. 1915) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list