Meckel v. State Bank of Barksdale
| Decision Date | 19 December 1923 |
| Docket Number | (No. 7051.) |
| Citation | 256 S.W. 668 |
| Parties | MECKEL v. STATE BANK OF BARKSDALE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Action by the State Bank of Barksdale against Ben F. Meckel. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded.
Wardlaw & Elliott, of Sonora, and Strickland & Seagler, of San Antonio, for plaintiff in error.
Old & Smith, of Uvalde, for appellee.
Defendant in error sued plaintiff in error on three promissory notes, two of them for $1,560 each, and the third for $1,378, all of which were due and unpaid, and citation was duly issued and served on plaintiff in error, which summoned him to appear at a term of the district court of Edwards county, to be held in Rock Springs on the fourth Monday of March, 1923, being the 26th day of said month. A few days before the service of process the Legislature met and enacted a law, which was approved by the Governor on January 30, 1923, and by its terms went immediately into effect, whereby the time of meeting of the district court in Edwards county was changed from March to the "fifth Monday after the first Monday in January of each year." This change caused the term for 1923 to begin on February 5th, instead of March 26th. The law making the change became effective on Saturday, January 30, 1923, and on February 7th judgment by default was taken against plaintiff in error, it being the third day of the court. Plaintiff in error was served with citation to appear on March 26, 1923, about 10 days before the act changing the time of convening the court from March to February went into effect. No notice was given plaintiff in error to appear at the February term, except in so far as is provided by the law itself. Plaintiff in error was a resident of Sutton county.
We do not think that the act changing the term of the district court in Edwards county was a special or local law, and in view of the fact that for many years such acts have been treated by the Supreme Court as general laws we refrain from a discussion of the matter. Not only does the plaintiff in error live in Sutton county, but he had been sued in Real county, in 1922, on the same claim, and had answered therein, and neither Real nor Sutton county is in the Sixty-Third district, of which Edwards county is a component part. Sutton county is in the Eighty-Third judicial district of Texas. It would be farcical, if it were not a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v. Christensen
...to appear and answer at the term beginning June 8. See Queiroli v. Whitesides (Tex. Civ. App.) 206 S. W. 122; Meckel v. State Bank of Barksdale (Tex. Civ. App.) 256 S. W. 668; Ramirez v. Martinez (Tex. Civ. App.) 208 S. W. 380. He had been served with a citation stating that the next term o......
-
United Fire Lloyds v. JD Kunz Concrete Contractor, Inc.
... ... 2007) (per curiam); Nevarez v. USAA ... Fed. Sav. Bank , 630 S.W.3d 416, 421-22 (Tex. App.-El ... Paso 2021, pet. denied)) ... See, e.g., Reynolds v. State , 390 S.W.2d 493, 495 ... (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1965, no writ) ... ...
-
Camden Fire Ins. Co. v. Hill
...service. With that declaration was coupled the assurance that the association need not answer until April 3, 1922. Meckel v. State Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 256 S. W. 668. If Hill's attorneys discovered error in the previously expressed understanding that there was no service, and thereupon des......
-
Hartman v. Byrd
...the defendant, at a term of court other than the existing "next regular term of the court." Neill v. Brown, 11 Tex. 17; Meckel v. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 256 S. W. 668. But the present suit may not be considered as standing merely in that special situation. The defendant here duly filed his t......