
    BRIGHTMAN et al. v. BRIGHTMAN.
    (No. 4246.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
    March 25, 1914.
    Motion to Affirm on Certificate Denied April 29, 1914.)
    Appeal and Error (§ 1127) — Affirmance— Motion.
    A motion to affirm on certificate must be denied, where the transcript accompanying- the motion does not contain a copy of the judgment which» the motion seeks to have affirmed.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4432 — 1410; Dec. Dig. § 1127.]
    Appeal from Tom Green County Court; Oscar Frink, Judge.
    Action between O. O. Brightman and others and O. P. Brightman, next friend, etc. There was a judgment for the latter, and the former appeal.
    On motion to affirm on certificate. Motion denied.
    W. A. Anderson and Dee Upton, both of San Angelo, for the motion.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   KEY, C. J.

This is a motion to affirm on certificate, and it must be overruled because the transcript which accompanies the motion does not contain a copy of the judgment which the motion seeks to have affirmed. In House v. Williams, 40 Tex. 351, and H. & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Greenwood, 40 Tex. 362, it was held that in order to confer jurisdiction and authorize an affirmance on certificate by that court, it was necessary that the transcript which accompanied the motion to affirm should contain a copy of the judgment and appeal bond; and in Supreme Council v. Anderson, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 615, 83 S. W. 208, this court made the same ruling, and overruled a motion to. affirm on certificate because the transcript did not contain a copy of the judgment. Following the cases cited, the motion asking for an affirmance on certificate is overruled.

Motion overruled.  