Fisk v. Warren
Decision Date | 08 February 1923 |
Docket Number | (No. 1413.) |
Parties | FISK et ux. v. WARREN. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Brion Montague, of Alpine, for plaintiffs in error.
W. Van Sickle, of Alpine, for defendant in error.
N. B. Fisk and wife, Mrs. Mary Fisk, plaintiffs in error, prosecute this appeal from a default judgment rendered against them and in favor of Mrs. A. E. Warren, defendant in error.
In view of the propositions presented, we think it well to set out the petition upon which the judgment was rendered. After the formal parts, in which it is alleged that Mrs. Warren is a feme sole and that "N. B. Fisk and his wife, Mrs. Mary Fisk, reside in Brewster county," the petition recites:
"Wherefore plaintiff prays the court that defendants be cited to appear and answer this petition, that she have judgment for her debt, interest, attorney's fees and costs of suit, and for the foreclosure of her lien on the above-described land and premises, and the same be decreed to be sold, according to law; and that the sheriff or other officer executing this writ and order of sale, shall place the purchaser of said property sold under said order of sale in possession thereof, within 30 days after the day of sale, and for such other and further relief, special and general, in law and in equity, as she may show herself entitled to, and she will ever pray"—and signed by her attorney.
The citation found in the record appears to have been duly issued and served upon N. B. Fisk and Mrs. Mary Fisk and follows substantially the statement of the cause of action as found in the petition. The notes found in the record are four of a series of five notes, each the same in verbiage except as to the date of payment and note number, and each signed by each of the plaintiffs in error,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. Jameson
...2 S.W.(2d) 467; Hoffman v. Tool Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 251 S. W. 823; Beshears v. Talbot (Tex. Civ. App.) 241 S. W. 635; Fisk v. Warren (Tex. Civ. App.) 248 S. W. 406; Poe v. Hall (Tex. Civ. App.) 241 S. W. 708], we think appellant's contention must be sustained, for we do not think the alleg......
-
Hart v. Martin
...v. City Nat. Bank of Colorado, Texas (Tex. Com. App.) 258 S. W. 1043; Beshears v. Talbot (Tex. Civ. App.) 241 S. W. 635; Fisk v. Warren (Tex. Civ. App.) 248 S. W. 406; Borchers v. Fly, 114 Tex. 79, 262 S. W. 734; Schenck v. Foster Building & Realty Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 215 S. W. 879; Haynes......
-
Fort Worth & Denver City Ry. Co. v. Reid
...Lumber Co. v. Spivey, Tex.Civ.App., 255 S. W. 193, modified on other points and affirmed by Supreme Court, 284 S.W. 215; Fisk v. Warren, Tev.Civ.App., 248 S.W. 406; 3 Tex.Jur., p. 113, § The rule of law is well settled in this state that, to entitle a party upon bill of review to have a pri......
-
Cheshire v. Palmer
...Civ. App.) 251 S. W. 823; Beshears v. Talbot (Tex. Civ. App.) 241 S. W. 635; Poe v. Hall (Tex. Civ. App.) 241 S. W. 708; Fisk v. Warren (Tex. Civ. App.) 248 S. W. 406. The judgment purporting to have been rendered November 8, 1930, being void, suit could not be maintained on it, and hence t......