(after stating the facts as above). Notwithstanding they relate to distinct and different matters, the first and second assignments of error are grouped in appellants’ brief, and only one proposition is submitted under them. Such grouping is a violation of the rules, and therefore the assignments will not be considered. Palm v. Theumann, 201 S. W. 421.
[1] The finding of the jury that the cottoh which appellee Taney Miller turned over to appellants in 1918 and 1919 was worth $2,538 is attacked as without support in the testimony. We have not thought it necessary to determine whether the contention should be sustained or not, because if it should be sustained the judgment should not therefore be reversed; for the jury also found, and the finding is in no way attacked, that said appellee was not indebted to appellants in any sum. It must be assumed in the absence of an attack on it that the finding was warranted by testimony. Smith v. Hessey, 63 Tex. Civ. App. 478, 134 S. W. 256; Burnett v. Bank, 191 S. W. 172. If it was, the judgment is not erroneous.
The judgment is affirmed.
<S=oFor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes