Cameron v. Roemele

Citations

• 59 Tex. 238
• 1 Tex. L. R. 947
• 1883 Tex. LEXIS 140

Syllabus

<p>1. Assignment of errors.— A paper detached from the transcript, and which purports to be an assignment of errors, filed without leave or consent of parlies,' and not in obedience to a certiorari to perfect the record, cannot be considered by the supreme court.</p> <p>2. Same — Presumption,— A transcript certified to by the clerk as a full, true and correct transcript of all the proceedings had in the cause, was delivered to the attorney for the plaintiff in error on the 20th of November, 1882, on which day a separate paper, purporting to be an assignment of errors in the same cause, was filed by the district clerk. Held, it will be presumed that the transcript was delivered before the paper designated as an assignment of errors was filed.</p> <p>S. Rules of court — Assignment óf erbobs.— The statute requires a distinct specification of errors to be made before the record is taken from the clerk’s office, and that this shall be attached to and constitute a part of the record. R. S., 1037. Under rule 97 for the government of the supreme court, the assignment of errors must be filed at the time of filing affidavit or bond for appeal, or bond for writ of error; while rule 98 provides that if the assignment of errors is filed after the transcript is delivered, the clerk may deliver to any party to the cause a certified copy of it, with date of filing; but there is no requirement which entitles it, in the absence of consent of parties or leave of the court, to be regarded as a part of the transcript.</p> <p>4. Same. — A cause may be dismissed under rule 39 for non-compliance with the rules regulating assignments of error, in the absence of good cause shown to excuse the omission. Attention called to the necessity of complying with rules of court governing assignments of error.</p>