Porter v. Hill County
| Decision Date | 11 December 1895 |
| Citation | 33 S.W. 383 |
| Parties | PORTER v. HILL COUNTY. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
McKinnon & Carlton, for plaintiff in error. Bounds & Bounds, for defendant in error.
Hill county sued J. M. Atchison as principal, and S. H. Atchison, J. H. Littlefield, and appellant as sureties, on a convict-labor bond, on which it was alleged that $345 was due and unpaid. It was alleged that appellant was a resident of Graham county, "Irozona," evidently intended for Arizona. A citation for appellant was addressed to the sheriff or any constable of Graham county, Ariz., and was returned executed by the sheriff, and the return was sworn to. The citation was not addressed to the nonresident defendant, as required by article 1230. While disposed to follow the policy of liberality pursued by the supreme court in passing upon service upon nonresidents (Jones v. Jones, 60 Tex. 451), rather than that policy of requiring strict compliance with the statute pursued by the court of appeals, in Leal v. Woodhouse, 2 Willson, Civ. Cas. Ct. App. § 101, still we do not feel inclined to carry liberality of construction to the extent of setting aside the requirement that the citation shall be addressed to the defendant. There was a personal judgment against appellant, and it is well settled in this state that service in another state upon a resident thereof will not support a mere personal judgment. Maddox v. Craig, 80 Tex. 600, 16 S. W. 328; Kimmarle v. Railway Co., 76 Tex. 686, 12 S. W. 698; York v. State, 73 Tex. 651, 11 S. W. 869. For the errors indicated, the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Bensberg v. Hartmann
...to the statute and is invalid. Secs. 1204, 1185, R. S. 1919; Vaughn v. Brown, 9 Ark. 20; Hickey v. Forristal, 49 Ill. 255; Porter v. Hill County, 33 S.W. 383; Hansford v. Tate, 56 S. E. (W. Va.) 372; Simonson v. Typer, 285 F. 240. Taylor R. Young, John C. Vogel and Abbott, Fauntleroy, Culle......
-
McDermott v. Gray
...by the clerk. Wade on Notice, sec. 1062; Hays v. Lewis, 21 Wis. 667; Charles v. Kelley, 120 Mo. 141; 20 Ency. Pl. and Pr., 1138; Paton v. Hill Co., 33 S.W. 383; Steele Murray, 80 Iowa 336. 2nd. For the reason that the petition filed in the divorce case by defendant asking and praying for a ......
-
Vincent v. Means
...by the seal of the court. (e) It is not directed, that is, addressed to any one. 20 Ency. Pl. and Prac., 1138, note 2; Porter v. Hill County (Texas), 33 S.W. 383; Steele v. Murry, 80 Iowa 336, 45 N.W. OPINION FOX, J. This is an action of ejectment for the possession of the southwest quarter......
-
Liverpool & London & G. Ins. Co. v. Lummus C. G. Sales Co.
...a nonresident defendant was not addressed to the defendant, but to the sheriff of the county of its alleged residence. Porter v. Hill County (Tex. Civ. App.) 33 S. W. 383; Wilson v. Grant, 79 Okl. 132, 191 P. 1040. In the absence of evidence or admission of the parties, that the judgment wa......