
    ELMO ROCK CO. v. SOWDERS.
    
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.
    March 15, 1913.
    Rehearing Denied March 29, 1913.)
    Appeal and Error (§ 724) — .Assignments of Error — Waiver.
    Assignments of error not in compliance with Courts of Civil Appeals rules 24 and 25 (142 S. W. xii), providing that assignments of error must distinctly specify the grounds of error, and defining a distinct specification of error, are waived.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2997-3001, 3022; Dec. Dig. § 724.]
    Appeal from District Court, Kaufman County; F. L. Hawkins, Judge.
    Action by J. B. Sowders against the Elmo. Rock Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Dashiell, Crum'baugh & Coon, of Terrell, and Meador & Davis, of Dallas, for appellant. Wynne & Wynne, of Wills Point, for appellee.
    
      
      For ottier cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’-r Indexes
    
    
      
       writ of error denied by Supreme Court.
    
   RAINEY, C. J.

Appellee brought this suit against the appellant to recover damages for personal injuries received by him while working as an employe of appellant as a machinist in a rock quarry; that the injury was caused by the falling of a derrick, due to the negligence of appellant.

Appellant answered by general demurrer, general denial, assumed risk, and contributory negligence.

A trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for $5,000 in favor of appellee, from which this appeal is taken by appellant.

In this case we feel constrained to hold that none of the assignments of error presented by appellant’s brief can 'be considered by us for a failure to comply with rules 24 and 25 (142 S. W. xii), promulgated by the Supreme Court for the government of the Courts of Civil Appeals.

In the cases of Railway Co. v. Ledbetter, 153 S. W. 646, and Lee v. Moore, 157 S. W. -, both recently decided by this court and yet unpublished, it was held that by noncompliance with said rules by the appellant in presenting the assignments they were treated as waived, and were not considered.

There is no fundamental error presented by the brief or the record, and the judgment is affirmed.  