
    DODSON v. BOLARD.
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.
    June 22, 1912.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 12, 1912.)
    Appeal and Error (§ 1126*) — Costs (§ 260*) —Appeal por Delay — Affirmance.
    Where the defeated party gave notice oi appeal on the date of the rendition of the judgment, but never filed an appeal bond, and a little over two months later filed his petition in error, together with a supersedeas bond, but did not procure the issuance of a citation until nearly three months thereafter, and the record contained no assignments of error or fundamental errors, and the transcript' was not accompanied by a statement of facts, the appeal was prosecuted for delay; and defendant, submitting the record on a suggestion of delay, under court rule 43 (142 S. W. xiv), was entitled to an affirmance of the judgment, with damages for the delay.
    TEd. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3144, 4429-4431; Dec. Dig. § 1126;* Costs, Cent. Dig. §§ 983-996, 1002, 1003; Dee. Dig. § 260.*]
    Error from District Court, Deaf Smith County; D. B. Hill, Judge.
    Action by J. N. Bolard against S. J. Dodson. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
    Affirmed, with damages for delay.
    Carl Gilliland and S. J. Dodson, both of Hereford, for plaintiff in error. Knight & Slaton, of Hereford, for defendant in error.
   HAUL, J.

December 5, 1911, final judgment was rendered in this cause in the district court of Deaf Smith county, when notice of appeal was given. No appeal bond was ever filed. On the 5th day of February, 1912, the plaintiff in the judgment below, defendant in error here, caused an order of sale to be issued and levied. On February 8, 1912, defendant in error filed his petition in error, together with a supersedeas bond; but no citation in error w-as issued until the 6th day of May following. There are no assignments of error in the record and no fundamental errors; nor is the transcript accompanied by a statement of facts.

It is clear that this appeal has been prosecuted for delay, and defendant in error having submitted the record upon a suggestion of delay, under rule 43 (142 S. W. xiv) for the courts of Texas, effective January 24, 1912, it is our opinion that his motion to have the judgment affirmed, with 10 per cent, damages for delay, should be granted; and it is so ordered.  