
    (109 Tex. 383)
    ST. LOUIS, B. & M. RY. CO. v. WEBBER.
    (App. No. 10822; Mo. No. 4405.)
    (Supreme Court of Texas.
    March 26, 1919.)
    1. Appeal and Error <®=>544(3) — Record-Bill op Exceptions — Plea of Privilege.
    If judgment showing action of court in overruling plea of privilege is in the record, formal bill of exceptions is unnecessary.
    2. Appeal and Error @=>501(1), 520(3) — Review — Sufficiency of Record — Venue.
    Whore the record does not contain an order of the court on the plea of special privilege and does not show any exception to the court’s action in overruling it, the question cannot be reviewed.
    3. Exceptions, Bill of @=>38 — Time—Term of Court.
    A ruling which would have been reviewable under proper bill of exceptions filed to the term at which it was made is clearly not reviewable under a bill of exceptions filed to a succeeding term.
    4. Appeal and Error @=>274(7) — Review-Trial — Objections—Sufficiency.
    The judgment of the court entered on a verdict of the jury in no wise reflected its action at the previous term on the plea of special privilege, and excepting to that judgment did not amount to an exception to its ruling on the plea.
    On motion for rehearing of refusal of application for writ of error.
    Denied.
    For opinion of Court of Civil Appeals, see 202 S. W. 519.
    Andrews, Streetman, Burns & Logue, of Houston, for plaintiff in error.
    Presley K. Ewing and L. E. Blankenbecker, both of Houston-(Ewing Werlein, of Houston, of counsel), for defendant in error.
   PHILLIPS, C. J.

Had there been preserved in the record the order or judgment of the trial court showing its action in overruling the defendant’s plea of privilege and that exception was taken thereto, the defendant, on its appeal, would have been entitled to have considered its assignments of error challenging the court’s action in that regard without further exception or addressing a motion for new trial to the ruling. With a judgment, taken from the minutes of the court, revealing the court’s action, it would have sufficiently appeared of record, rendering a formal bill of exception useless and unnecessary. The hearing on the plea having been before the court and the court having acted, there was no need to again bring the matter to the court’s attention by a motion for new trial. The record here, however, does not contain the order of the court on the plea, nor does it show any proper exception to the court’s action in overruling it. Attempt was made to preserve a record of the court’s action by means of a bill of exception filed to the succeeding term of the court at which the trial on the merits was had. The ruling would have been reviewable under a proper bill of exception filed to the term at which it was made, but it was clearly not reviewable under a bill of exception filed to a succeeding term.

The judgment of the court entered on the verdict of the jury in nowise reflected its action at the previous term on the plea of privilege, and excepting to that judgment did not, therefore, amount to an exception to its ruling on the plea. It was for these reasons that we sustained the action of the Court of Civil Appeals in its declining to consider the assignments of error touching the plea of privilege through our refusal of the writ of error.  