Dixon v. Watson
| Decision Date | 03 January 1906 |
| Citation | 91 S.W. 618 |
| Parties | DIXON v. WATSON.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Fiset & McClendon and L. A. Hill, for plaintiff in error. Fred. C. Von Rosenberg, for defendant in error.
May 2, 1904, A. O. Watson recovered a judgment against R. V. Dixon in the county court of Travis county. On May 1, 1905, Dixon filed with the clerk of the county court of Travis county a petition for writ of error, which correctly described the judgment referred to, except that it stated that it was rendered by the county court of Caldwell county. Watson by his attorney, waived the issuance and service of citation, and accepted notice of the filing of the petition. On the same day that the petition was filed, Dixon filed an affidavit with the county judge of Travis county, made the necessary proof, and obtained an order authorizing him to prosecute a writ of error without giving bond. May 25, 1905, Dixon filed an amended petition for writ of error, in which amendment it was stated that the judgment complained of was rendered by the county court of Travis county. On the same day a citation was issued by the clerk of the county court of Travis county, upon the original and amended petition, in which citation the judgment was correctly described. The citation was duly served on Watson on May 31, 1905.
The defendant in error has submitted a motion to dismiss the writ of error, because the petition fails to properly describe the judgment. The statute requires a petition for writ of error to describe the judgment with sufficient certainty to identify it. In describing a judgment so as to distinguish it from all other judgments, the statement of the court by which it was rendered is one of the most important matters of description; and when it is sought to apply such a description to a judgment rendered by a different court from the one stated in the description, it must be held that such description does not identify that judgment, unless it manifestly appears that the person who wrote the description committed a clerical error in stating the court by which the judgment was rendered. It is possible that a suit substantially similar to this as to parties, subject-matter, and final judgment may have been decided by the county court of Caldwell county....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diamond Cattle Co. v. Clark
...a petition in error: Riordan v. Horton, (Wyo.) 94 P. 448; Board of Commissioners v. Shaffner, (Wyo.) 68 P. 14; 3 C. J. 1089; Dixon v. Watson, (Texas) 91 S.W. 618. In the following discussion of the merits of the defendant in error does not waive his motion to dismiss the proceedings. Indeed......
-
Fryer v. Campbell
... ... record of any case, it must be dismissed. Higgins v ... Higgins (Kan. App.) 52 P. 906; Farmers' Bank v ... Bank (Okla.) 140 P. 1150; Dixon v. Watson, (Tex ... Civ. App.) 91 S.W. 618; Mills Company v. Tanner (Mo ... App.) 271 S.W. 831; Riordan v. Horton, 16 Wyo ... 363; Hall Oil ... ...
-
Ferguson v. Beaumont Land & Building Co.
...v. Pine & Poindexter, 55 Tex. 427; Young v. Russell, 60 Tex. 684; Weems & Waldo v. Watson, 91 Tex. 35, 40 S. W. 722; Dixon v. Watson, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 266, 91 S. W. 618; Wright v. Red River Bank, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 97, 20 S. W. 879; Grant v. Collins, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 45, 23 S. W. 994; Hayden......
-
In re Mikkelson's Estate
...same rule must apply here, for the timely service of a notice complying with the statute is jurisdictional. See, also, Dixon v. Watson, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 266, 91 S. W. 618; 3 C. J. 2. Gen. St. 1923, § 9243, provides that "a notice or other paper shall be effectual though the title of the ac......