Doss v. State

Decision Date01 January 1851
Citation6 Tex. 433
CourtTexas Supreme Court

In a qui tam action the judgment should be rendered in favor of the informer for the uses expressed in the statute, and it is error to render judgment in favor of the State.

Error from Houston. This was a proceeding commenced before a justice of the peace on the information of Harrison against Learned in 1843 for a violation of the second section of the act of the 16th January, 1843. (Hart. Dig., art. 3063.)

The justice of the peace rendered a judgment against Learned for twenty-five dollars and costs. The judgment was in these words, after stating the proof and the charge: “It is therefore adjudged that judgment be entered against defendant for twenty-five dollars damages and all lawful costs.” An appeal was asked; no bond, however, having been given within the time prescribed by law, an execution was issued. The case was then taken to the District Court by a certiorari, the defendant Learned giving bond, and with the plaintiffs in error as his securities. In this bond Harrison was the obligee, and it described the character in which he sued as follows: “Firmly bound to William H. Harrison, who sues as well for himself as the county of Houston and the Republic of Texas.” It was continued from term to term until the Spring Term of the court, 1847, when the following judgment was entered: “Injunction dissolved and cause dismissed at the cost of John H. Learned: Whereupon it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the Governor of the State of Texas do recover of John H. Learned the sum of twenty-five dollars and all costs in this behalf expended, and that execution issue.”

At the Spring Term, 1848, a motion was made on behalf of the officers of the court for a judgment against the securities of Learned, representing that execution had been issued on the judgment of the court of the preceding term against him, which had been returned “no property found,” on which motion the following judgment was rendered: “It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the State of Texas do recover of the said securities, Riley B. Wallace, John E. Doss, and Samuel A. Burton, the sum of twenty-five dollars and all costs in this behalf expended, and that execution issue.”

Yoakum and Taylor, for plaintiff in error.

Attorney General, for defendant in error.


It is alleged by the plaintiff in error that the court below erred in the rendition of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • American Liberty Pipe Line Co. v. Agey
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 16, 1942
    ...the sovereign; qui tam actions being "well known to the jurisprudence of this State"; citing Bush v. Republic of Texas, 1 Tex. 455; Doss v. State, 6 Tex. 433; Tarde v. Benseman, 31 Tex. 277; State v. Garcia, 38 Tex. 543; Rawlings v. State, 39 Tex. He contends that Sec. 11 authorized the sui......
  • Omaha & Republican Valley Railway Company v. Hale
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • June 18, 1895
    ... ...          The ... plaintiff in error insists that this action cannot be ... maintained, because, in this state, no officer is known as an ... informer, nor is power given to any person as such; and, in ... the section upon which this action is predicated, no ... Bishop, 7 Conn. 181; State v. Smith, 49 N. H., ... 155; Vandeventer v. Van Court, 2 N.J.L. 155; ... Mitchell v. State, 12 Neb. 538; Doss v ... State, 6 Tex. 433; Caswell v. Allen, 10 Johns ... [N. Y.], 118; Wardens v. Cope, 2 Ired. [N. Car.], ... 44; Rayham v. Rounseville, 9 Pick ... ...
  • Gibbs v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 24, 1898
    ...denied, the issue being whether in all cases the prosecution must be conducted by the informer. We are also cited to the case of Doss v. State, 6 Tex. 433. This case has nothing whatever to do with the question at issue. When we refer to the authorities upon this subject, we find that, wher......
  • Able v. Lee
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • January 1, 1851

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT