O'Donnell v. Chambers
Decision Date | 03 January 1914 |
Parties | O'DONNELL v. CHAMBERS. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
H. C. Ferguson, of Lubbock, for plaintiff in error. G. E. Lockhart, of Tahoka, and Synnott & Underwood, of Amarillo, for defendant in error.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff in error T. J. O'Donnell from a judgment by default rendered in the district court of Lynn county, in favor of J. R. Chambers, for the sum of $3,423.65, against T. J. O'Donnell, C. E. Brown, and C. H. Doak, and the foreclosure of a lien to secure the purchase money for lots 10, 11, and 12, block 22, Chambers' addition to the town of Tahoka, Lynn county, Tex. The judgment recites that the defendants were duly cited and made default, and after hearing the evidence the court rendered a judgment. The petition alleges: That T. J. O'Donnell resides in Nolan county, and that C. E. Brown and C. H. Doak each reside in Lynn county, and for cause of action sets up that on the first day of November, 1909, the defendants therein executed a note for $2,500, with interest thereon from date at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum and providing for 10 per cent. attorney's fees if suit was brought thereon or if placed in the hands of an attorney for collection.
Certain credits are alleged as having been made, and the amount and the date of payment are set out in the petition, and it is further alleged that plaintiff had placed the notes in the hands of C. E. Lockhart, an attorney, for collection, under an agreement to pay the attorney's fees stipulated for in the note. The prayer is for judgment for the debt, interest, and attorney's fees and for a foreclosure of the lien on the above-described land and premises. The petition does not appear to have been signed by an attorney. It has appended at its conclusion, "* * * Attorney for plaintiff, J. R. Chambers." This case is brought up to this court by a writ of error.
Plaintiff in error assigns, first, that the court was in error in rendering judgment because the petition upon which the suit is based was not signed by the defendant in error, was not authenticated by any one or by an attorney representing defendant in error, and that a judgment by default...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
C. C. Slaughter Cattle Co. v. Potter County
...21, 133 S. W. 426; Hamburger v. Thomas, 118 S. W. 770; Heath v. Huffhines, 152 S. W. 176; Cheek v. Nicholson, 133 S. W. 707; O'Donnell v. Chambers, 163 S. W. 138(2); La Prelle v. Brown, 220 S. W. It is insisted that the added words "no binding force and effect upon either party hereto" are ......
-
North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman
... ... 390; 77 S.E. 370 ... Baird v. Prewitt, 158 Ky. 793; 166 S.W. 771 ... Cochran v. Thomas, 131 Mo. 258; 33 S.W. 6 ... O'Donnell v. Chambers, Tex. Civ. App ... 163 S.W ... 138.) And see, Riordan v. Horton, 16 Wyo. 363, 94 P ... 448; Toledo v. Converse, 65 Ohio St. 401, 62 N.E ... ...
-
Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. of Milwaukee, Wis. v. Averill
... ... 370; Baird v. Prewitt, 158 Ky. 793, 166 S.W ... 771; Cochran v. Thomas, 131 Mo. 258, 33 S.W. 6; ... O'Donnell v. Chambers (Tex. Civ. App.) 163 S.W ... 138. And see Riordan v. Horton, 16 Wyo. 363, 94 P ... 448; ... [42 P.2d 758] edo v. Converse, 65 ... ...
-
Moran Oil & Gas Co. v. Anderson
...658, 1 S. W. 905; Marshall v. Marshall, 30 S. W. 578; Lash v. Bank, 54 S. W. 806; National Society v. Tennison, 174 S. W. 978; O'Donnell v. Chambers, 163 S. W. 138; Andrews v. Ennis, 16 Tex. The cases of Guimond v. Nast and Crain v. Griffis, supra, will perhaps best illustrate the general p......