on the partnership factors. Rule 276 provides in part, “When an instruction, question, or definition is requested and the provisions of the law have been complied with and the trial judge refuses the same, the judge shall endorse thereon ‘Refused,’ and sign the same officially.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 276. JP Morgan’s proposed charge does not contain any such endorsement. An endorsement is not the only means of obtaining a ruling, but if there is no endorsement, the record must establish that the trial court otherwise ruled on the request, expressly or implicitly, for potential error to be preserved. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Marshall v. Harris Cnty. Mun. Util. Dist. No. 358, No. 01-07-00910-CV, 2011 WL 286167, at *11—12 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 20, 2011, pet. denied) (mem.op.) (<HOLDING>); Coates v. Coates, No. 05-08-00440-CV, 2009 WL
holding that appellant failed to preserve error because it did not present appellate complaint to trial court holding that trial courts jury charge did not amount to reversible error given that plaintiff failed to show she was prejudiced by inapplicable portion of trial courts charge holding appellant could not complain of jurys failure to answer question because the charge instructed the jury not to do so based on its answer to a prior question and because appellant did not object to this instruction holding that because trial court actually gave part of a jury charge that appellant claimed was improperly omitted and because remainder of courts charge adequately defined one of the legal terms at issue the courts jury charge taken as a whole was not misleading and did not constitute reversible error holding that although appellant filed a proposed jury charge appellant did not preserve error because trial court did not endorse proposed charge and appellant did not call trial courts attention to the portions of the proposed charge that were complained about on appeal