Hugo v. Seffel
| Decision Date | 02 February 1899 |
| Parties | HUGO et al. v. SEFFEL et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by Annie Seffel and another against Charles Hugo and others. A judgment for plaintiffs was affirmed by the court of civil appeals on certificate, because of a failure to file the transcript in time, and defendants apply for a writ of error. Application denied.
Wurzbach & Wurzbach, for applicants.
This suit was brought by Annie Seffel and her husband against Hugo and Schmeltzer and one Campbell, as sheriff of Bexar county, to enjoin the defendants from selling under execution against the husband a lot in the city of San Antonio, alleged to be the separate property of the wife. Heuermann was subsequently brought into the suit as a party defendant. Upon the trial a judgment was entered perpetuating the injunction, and the defendants Hugo, Schmeltzer, and Heuermann gave notice of appeal. They filed an appeal bond payable to Annie Seffel only. The transcript not having been filed in time, the judgment was affirmed upon certificate. The appellants then moved the court to set aside the affirmance, and to permit the transcript to be filed, which motion was denied. They also moved the court to vacate its judgment of affirmance, and to dismiss the appeal, upon the grounds that the judgment of the trial court was not a final judgment from which an appeal could be taken, and that the appeal bond was not in compliance with the statute. This motion was also overruled. This application is filed for the purpose of reviewing the action of the court of civil appeals in affirming the judgment, and refusing to dismiss the proceedings in that court.
The court of civil appeals held (correctly, as we think) that the judgment was final, and upon that question we deem it unnecessary to make any remarks. In determining the other point, the court held the bond sufficient, and we doubt the correctness of that ruling. It is true, the wife is the real party to the suit, but the husband is a proper party. Indeed, he is a necessary party to an action to recover or protect the wife's separate property, unless he refuse to bring the suit himself or join her in suing. By joining her in the suit, he becomes liable for the costs, in the event they should fail to recover. Therefore he has a personal interest in preventing a reversal of the judgment. Should a reversal be granted, he may,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drake v. Yawn
...too late. Court of Civil Appeals Rules 8 and 9 (142 S. W. xi); Gilbough v. Stahl Building Co., 91 Tex. 621, 45 S. W. 385; Hugo v. Seffel, 92 Tex. 414, 49 S. W. 369; Richer Lee & Co. v. Collins, 81 Tex. 662, 17 S. W. What we have said here disposes of appellees' third allegation of error. Se......
-
Peck v. Powell
...parties are equally responsible for that irregularity. The defective appeal bond gave this court jurisdiction of the case. Hugo v. Seffel, 92 Tex. 414, 49 S. W. 369. The rule announced by this court in Shamburger v. Glenn (Tex. Civ. App.) 255 S. W. 815, to the effect that, where there are s......
-
West v. Giesen
...of Civil Appeals. Notwithstanding that argument, we feel constrained to rule otherwise, and cite in support of our ruling Hugo v. Seffel, 92 Tex. 414, 49 S. W. 369; Williams v. Wiley, 96 Tex. 148, 71 S. W. 12; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. State, 107 Tex. 7, 106 S. W. 326; Tynberg v. Cohen, 76 T......
-
Mitchell v. Hancock
...by the appellant receiver to give a bond, we are of the opinion we should proceed to hear and determine the appeal. See Hugo v. Seffel, 92 Tex. 414, 49 S. W. 369; Williams v. Wiley, 96 Tex. 148, 71 S. W. 14; Palmer v. Spandenberg, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 331, 108 S. W. 477; Appel v. Childress, 53......