DocketNumber: No. 8376.
Citation Numbers: 225 S.W. 93, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 990
Judges: Hamilton
Filed Date: 10/23/1920
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/14/2024
This was an action contesting the will of Mittie E. Robinson, deceased. It was instituted in the county court of Navarro county, and from that court it was brought to the district court on appeal. In the district court the contest was heard before the court and a jury. The case was submitted to the jury upon special issues, which the jury found against appellants.
The record contains no statement of facts. Appellant has filed a brief containing six assignments of error; Four of these relate to the charge of the court. The rule announced and uniformly followed by the Supreme Court and the Courts of Civil Appeals of this state is that alleged errors in giving or refusing charges cannot be reviewed on appeal in the absence of a statement of facts, except in cases where the pleadings contain matter which .shows that the charge is necessarily erroneous. That exception to the rule is not presented in this case, and we must therefore follow the rule and decline to consider any of the assignments of error complaining of the charge of the court.
The fifth and sixth assignments of error complain of the admission of certain testimony in rebuttal over the appellants’ objection. The action of the court in this respect was excepted to, and the bill of exceptions appear in the record.
Numerous decisions of our appellate courts announce the rule that without a statement of facts the action of the court below in admitting or excluding evidence will not be reviewed on appeal unless the bill of exceptions contains sufficient facts to reveal, not only that the trial court committed error, but that the error, with reasonable certainty, must have produced a substantial injury to appellants’ cause.
The bills of exceptions on this feature of the case before us are insufficient to take them out of the rule above stated. They do not meet either of the two requiz-ements necessary to constitute the exception to the rule. They make no pretension of setting out the evidence, admitted over appellants’ objection, but refer to the statement of facts for a statement of the evidence, to the admission of which appellants excepted. Besides, one of these bills of exceptions is not signed by the judge, and the record discloses that he expressly declined to approve it.
The record discloses no fundamental error, and in the absence of a statement of facts we are precluded from reviewing the assignments of error contained in appellants’ brief, and the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.
Affirmed.