Mahan v. McManus
Decision Date | 22 May 1907 |
Citation | 102 S.W. 789 |
Parties | MAHAN v. McMANUS et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Liberty County; L. B. Hightower, Jr., Judge.
Action by R. C. McManus and others against J. R. Mahan. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
On December 5, 1905, the appellees, plaintiffs below, filed their original petition against George W. Burkett and L. J. Barnes in the ordinary form of trespass to try title to 980 acres of land, specifically described therein, situated in Liberty county, Tex.; and on January 27, 1906, they filed their first amended original petition, which was of the same character and for the same tract of land, against the same defendants and also against S. B. Arrendell, J. R. Mahan, and J. T. McWhorters, alleging that the three last-named defendants reside in Liberty county, Tex. On the same day citation was issued to the sheriff or any constable of Liberty county commanding him to summon S. B. Arrendell, J. R. Mahan, and J. T. McWhorters to appear before the district court of Liberty county, Tex., at the next regular term thereof to be holden at the courthouse in Liberty county on the fifth Monday after the second Monday in January, 1906, the same being the 12th day of February, 1906, then and there to answer plaintiffs' petition filed in a suit in said court on the 27th of January, 1906, wherein R. C. McManus, V. R. McManus, Sadie J. McManus, A. G. McCormick, F. C. Viguerie, Adolph Viguerie, Louis Viguerie, Mrs. Margarite Bodin, Nobert Bodin, Mrs. Alice Viguerie Williams, Mrs. Elvira Viguerie Ulmer, Peter Ulmer, Mrs. Annette Viguerie Bland, William H. Bland, Mrs. Josephine Bourg, F. X. Bourg, and Edward Viguerie are plaintiffs, and George W. Burkett, L. J. Barnes, S. B. Arrendell, J. R. Mahan, and J. T. McWhorters are defendants, file number of said suit being No. 3882. The citation states fully the nature of plaintiffs' demand, as it appears from their first amended original petition, and commands the officer "to deliver to the said defendants S. R. Arrendell, J. R. Mahan, and J. T. McWhorters in person a true copy of this citation, together with a certified copy of plaintiffs' original petition." The return on the citation is as follows:
The plaintiffs dismissed their suit as against G. W. Burkett and L. J. Barnes. Judgment by default was rendered against McWhorters on the 13th of February, 1906. Judgment was rendered against Arrendell on his disclaimer on March 1, 1906, and, on the same day judgment was rendered by default against J. R. Mahan in favor of plaintiffs for the land sued for.
Mahan has appealed from the judgment against him.
Baldwin & Christian, for appellant. W. L. Bingle and Stevens & Pickett, for appellees.
NEILL, J. (after stating the facts).
The first assignment of error is: "The trial court erred in rendering judgment, by default, against this defendant, for the reason that the citation issued for this defendant is wholly insufficient to authorize a judgment against this defendant." We overrule the proposition under this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lipscomb v. Wood County
...statement of the rule anywhere than by Judge Neill for the Court of Civil Appeals at San Antonio, in the case of Mahan v. McManus (Tex. Civ. App.) 102 S. W. 789. We quote from that opinion as follows: "Although the name of each follows, it does not appear therefrom, when taken in connection......
-
Lipscomb v. Wood County
...111 S. W. 787, 51 Tex. Civ. App. 237; Kellam v. Trail (Tex. Civ. App.) 185 S. W. 988; Holliday v. Steele, 65 Tex. 388; Mahan v. McManus (Tex. Civ. App.) 102 S. W. 789; Russell v. Butler (Tex. Civ. App.) 71 S. W. 395; Rush v. Davenport (Tex. Civ. App.) 34 S. W. 380; Chamblee v. Hufsmith (Tex......
-
Jones v. Watts
...and a third defendant now deceased. Appellants, however, contend that under a decision of a Texas Court of Civil Appeals, Mahan v. McManus, 102 S. W. 789, the entry is insufficient to show who was served. No appearance was made, and on May 27, 1933, judgment was taken by default in favor of......
-
Home Ben. Ass'n v. Sims, 1157.
...by default. Russell v. Butler (Tex. Civ. App.) 71 S. W. 395; Duke v. Spiller, 51 Tex. Civ. App. 237, 111 S. W. 787; Mahan v. McManus (Tex. Civ. App.) 102 S. W. 789; Kellam v. Trail (Tex. Civ. App.) 185 S. W. 988; Martin v. Hawkins (Tex. Civ. App.) 238 S. W. 991 (error On May 2, 1931 plainti......