
    WILLIS v. HATFIELD.
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 14, 1911.)
    1. Appeal and Error (§ 742) — Assignments op Error.
    Rev. >St. 1895, art. 1018, requires assignments of error to distinctly specify the grounds relied upon for reversal. Rules 24 to 26 (67 S. W. xv) provide not only that assignments must distinctly specify the grounds of error, but that they shall in a particular manner point out that part of the proceedings contained in the record in which consists the error complained of sd as to identify it. Rules 29 to 32 (67 S. W. xv) provide that assignments should be followed by appropriate propositions and statements. Held, that an assignment that, ‘•the court erred in sustaining appellee’s general demurrers and exceptions to appellant’s special answers, exceptions, and demurrers to plaintiff’s petition and strike out the same. Rec. 3,” but without any statement following the assignment, the only reference to the record being to the page of the transcript setting forth appellee’s petition, which contained the demurrers and exceptions, was insufficient.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3000; Dec. Dig. § 742.]
    2. Appeal and Error (§ 742) — Assignments op Error — Propositions and Statements.
    An assignment of error, not followed by a proposition or statement, is improper.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3000; Dec. Dig. § 742.]
    3. Appeal and Error (§ 731) — Assignment op Errors — Speoipication op Errors.
    An assignment of error, in receiving a verdict not responsive to the pleadings, but not pointing out in what particular it was not responsive, is improper.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent Dig. §§ 3017-3021; Dec. Dig. § 731.]
    4. Appeal and Error (§ 742) — Assignment op Error — Statements.
    An assignment that the court erred in not administering to the sheriff the oath required ■by law before he summoned the jury, and that the jury was not selected by jury commission-fers, without any showing that the appellant took exception to such failure other than pointed out by the statement in the assignment itself, is not sufficient.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3000; Dee. Dig. § 742.]
    5. Appeal and Error (§ 742) — Assignments op Error — Statements.
    Where an assignment of error did not contain statements or exceptions in compliance with the statutes and rules, the Supreme Court will only look to the record for the purpose of determining whether the court had jurisdiction and was authorized to render the judgment under the pleadings.
    [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3000; Dec. Dig. § 742.]
    Appeal from District Court, Clay County; A. H. Carrigan, Judge.
    Action by J. M. Hatfield against M. Willis. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Geo. A. Watts, for appellant. P. M. Stine and Allen, Jones & Allen, for appellee.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dee. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   CONNER, C. J.

As indicated by the original petition, appellee instituted this suit to recover the possession of 311 ½ acres of land situated in Clay county, claiming by virtue of a valid lease from Raines county, alleged to be the owner in fee simple. Appellant answered, claiming the right of possession by virtue of a former lease, and also pleaded in estoppel the judgment of a justice’s court in a forcible entry and detainer suit to which it was alleged the plaintiff was a privy and therefore bound. The trial resulted in a judgment in behalf of the plaintiff, appellee herein, and the defendant has appealed.

Appellee has formally objected to a consideration of any of the assignments of error, and we find ourselves under the necessity of sustaining the objections. The statute (Rev. St. 1895, art. 1018) requires all assignments of error to distinctly specify the grounds upon which the party presenting the assignment relies, and rules 24 to 26 (67 S. W. xv), inclusive, provide not only that assignments must distinctly specify the grounds of error relied upon, but also in a particular manner to point out that part of the proceedings contained in the record in which consists the error complained of so as to identify it. Rules 29 to 32 (67 S. W. xv), inclusive, provide that assignments should be followed by appropriate propositions and statements, and that when not so done the assignment shall be regarded as abandoned.

Appellant’s first assignment is that “the court erred in sustaining appellee’s general demurrers and exceptions to appellant’s special answers, exceptions, and demurrers to plaintiff’s petition and strike the same out. Rec. 3.” There is no statement following this assignment, and the only reference to the record is to the page of the transcript setting forth appellee’s petition which contains the demurrers and exceptions. If the court in fact sustained the demurrers and exceptions as asserted in the assignment, it is not shown by any statement from or reference to the record by which we can verify it.

The second, third, fourth, and fifth assignments complain of the court’s rejection of certain evidence and documents therein referred to, and there is no statement from or reference to the record under any one of these assignments informing this court what objections to the evidence were made or sustained, or even that bills of exceptions were taken to the rulings of the court.

The sixth assignment urges an objection to the court’s peremptory instruction in ap-pellee’s behalf on the ground that the title to the land was in Raines county, but the assignment, as before, is not followed by a proposition or statement of any kind.

The seventh assignment is that the court erred in receiving the verdict of the jury for the reason that the verdict was not responsive to the pleadings of the case, but m what particular not responsive is not pointed out.

The eighth and final assignment is that “the court erred in not administering to the sheriff or any of his deputies the oath as required by law before said sheriff summoned said jury that tried said cause; that the jury was not a jury selected by jury commissioners.” If the court failed as asserted in the assignment, and if appellant took any exception to such failure, it is not evidenced by anything pointed out other than the statement in the assignment itself.

We think it manifest, under the authorities, without further discussion, that we must sustain appellee’s objections to the assignments, and decline to consider them other than to look to. the record for the purpose of determining whether the court had jurisdiction, and was authorized to render the judgment he did under the pleadings of the plaintiff, and this we have done. See Cage v. Tucker’s Heirs, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 48, 60 S. W. 579; Cooper v, Hiner, 91 Tex. 658, 45 S. W. 554; Guerguin v. McGown, 53 S. W. 585.

Judgment affirmed.  