This suit was brought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by appellee while in the employ of appellant, resulting from a collision between appellant’s freight train, and a hand car upon which he was engaged at work, charging various acts of negligence which brought about the collision. Defendant, after interposing a general demurrer and a general denial, answered, in substance, that the plaintiff’s injuries were the result of his own negligent, rash, and reckless conduct, and that he had ample time to have avoided the injuries to himself, if he had obeyed the orders of his foreman to leave the hand car and go to a place of safety. There was a jury trial, resulting in a verdict and judgment for appellee, from which this appeal is prosecuted. There are seven assignments of error, all of which, except one, complain of certain paragraphs of the court’s charge, and the refusal to give certain special charges requested by appellant. None of said assignments refer to the motion for new trial, or that part thereof complaining of the matters involved therein, as required by rule 25 for the government of this court adopted by the Supreme Court January 24, 1912. This omission has been called to our attention by appellee, who insists that the assignments should not be considered by us, and the case affirmed without reference to its merits; his objection being based on a noncompliance with rules 24 and 25 for the government of this court (142 S. W. xii).
The case was tried on the 24th day of April, 1912; the amended motion for new trial and the assignments of error were filed, respectively, on the 27th of May and the 26th of July, 1912. These rules were adopted on the 24th of January, 1912, and were officially published in 142 S. W. vii, which was issued and went into the hands of the profession about the middle of April of said year.
In the case of Davidson v. Patton, 149 S. W. 757, and St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Ledbetter, 153 S. W. 646, as well as the case of Tinsley v. Bottom, decided by this court Blarch 19th, not yet published, it was held that a failure to comply with said rules, where objection is made by the opposite side, required the court to hold said assignments as waived and disregard same; except in *176the last case referred to, where the assignment was considered, because it appeared that the case was tried and the appeal prepared so soon after the promulgation of said rules as to warrant the belief that they had not come to the knowledge of counsel. See, also, Sargent et al. v. Barnes. 159 S. W. 366, this day decided by this court, wherein the question involved is fully discussed and a .like ruling made.
However, it was urged by counsel for appellant at the hearing that paragraphs 9 and 10 of the court’s main charge, upon which are predicated assignments Nos. 1 and 2, constituted fundamental error. We have carefully -examined same and disagree with counsel in this respect.
Believing that the rules of the court should be observed, and that a noneomplianee therewith (especially when insisted upon by opposing counsel) is sufficient ground for disregarding the assignments, we conclude that in the instant case the assignments should be regarded as waived, and the judgment of the court below affirmed, and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.