
    PHŒNIX FURNITURE CO. v. DAVID.
    (No. 1492.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.
    Feb. 22, 1927.)
    1. Appeal and error <&wkey;731 (5) — Assignment of error that verdict was contrary to .evidence is too general for consideration.
    An assignment of error that “the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence” is too general to be considered by the Court of Civil Appeals.
    2. Appeal and error <&wkey;733 — Assignment that judgment was contrary to law held too general for consideration.
    Error assigned “because the judgment of the court was contrary to law” is too general, and' cannot be. considered by the Court of Civil Appeals.
    Appeal from Jefferson County Court; C. N. Ellis, Judge.
    Action by A. L. David against the Phoenix Furniture Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Crook, Lefler, Cunningham & Murphy,- of Beaumont, for appellant.
    Conley & Renfro, of Beaumont, for appel-lee.
   O’QUINN, J.

Appellee sued appellant for debt, and upon a verdict of a jury recovered judgment in the sum of $225. Motion for a new hearing was overruled, and the case is before us on- appeal.

Three assignments of error are presented. The first and second are:

“(1) Because the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence.
“(2) Because the judgment of the court was contrary to the law.”

Under repeated decisions, these assignments cannot be considered, because too general.

The third assignment is:

“Because the court erred in failing and refusing to instruct the jury, at the request of the defendant, to return a verdict for defendant.”

The assignment is overruled. The record does not disclose that the evidence was all one way. The contract on which appellant based its motion , for. an instructed verdict did not, in terms', dispose of the question in controversy between the parties, and (¡he question of intent was one of fact, which was submitted to the jury, and they found in favor of appellee. .

The judgment is affirmed.  