Sugg v. Thornton
Decision Date | 23 December 1889 |
Citation | 132 U.S. 524,33 L.Ed. 447,10 S.Ct. 163 |
Parties | SUGG et al. v. THORNTON. 1 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Sawnie Robertson and W. O. Davis, for plaintiffs in error.
Wm. Warner, O. H. Dean, and Jas. Hagerman, for defendant in error.
James T. Thornton filed his petition in the district court of Cooke county, Tex., against J. W. Sacra, J. W. Wilson, Isaac Cloud, and E. C. Sugg & Bro., averring the latter to be a copartnership composed of E. C. Sugg and Iker Sugg, and that E. C. Sugg resided in Tarrant county, Tex., and Iker Sugg in Johnson county, Wyo., to recover on a promissory note for $26,964.05, purporting to have been signed by Sacra, Wilson, Cloud, and E. C. Sugg & Bro. The petition prayed for a citation to the defendants, and a notice to the defendant Iker Sugg, as provided by article 1230 of the Revised Statutes of Texas, and for judgment for the amount of the note, and for costs, and for general and special relief. All of the defendants were served in Texas except Iker Sugg, to whom notice and a certified copy of the petition were delivered under the statute, in Wyoming territory. Articles 1224, 1230, and 1346 of the Revised Statutes of Texas are as follows: 1 Sayles, Tex. Civil St. 417, 418, 448. Judgment was rendered by the district court in these words:
On December 5, 1885, J. D. Sugg filed a petition to vacate the judgment so far as it affected him and his individual property, and so far as it affected the property of the partnership of E. C. Sugg & Bro., upon the grounds that the note was not given for a partnership liability of his firm, but that the firm name was signed thereto as surety for Sacra, and without authority, it being outside the scope of the partnership; that the judgment did not dispose of the case as to him; that his name was not 'Iker' or I. D. Sugg, but J. D. Sugg sometimes called 'Ikard Sugg;' that the partnership of E. C. Sugg & Bro. owned property in the state of Texas, and was largely indebted; and that the assets of the firm would be required to pay its debts. The petition was sworn to, and sustained by the affidavits of E. C. Sugg and others. In reply, Thornton filed an answer asking that the judgment be corrected as to the name of J. D. Sugg, and alleging that J. D. Sugg and Iker Sugg were one and the same person, who, with E. C. Sugg, composed the partnership of E. C. Sugg & Bro.; that E. C. Sugg & Bro. owned property in Texas, Wyoming, and the Indian Territory, of the value of about a million dollars, and were attempting to dispose of their property with intent to defraud their creditors; that plaintiff had obtained a judgment lien against their property in Texas; and various facts tending to show that the note was properly signed, 'E. C. SUGG & BRO.;' and affidavits were filed in support of this answer. The district court proceeded to determine the issues thus raised, upon the affidavits, without objection, and overruled the motion to vacate and set aside the judgment, and entered an order directing the clerk to correct the judgment as asked by Thornton, so as to give J. D. Sugg's name correctly. To this action J. D. Sugg and E. C. Sugg & Bro. excepted, and gave notice of an appeal to the supreme court.
Article 1037 of the Revised Statutes of Texas provides: 'The appellant or plaintiff in error shall in all cases file with the clerk of the court below an assignment of errors, distinctly specifying the grounds on which he relies, before he takes the transcript of the record from the clerk's office, and a copy of such assignment of errors shall be attached to and form a part of the record; and all errors not so distinctly specified shall be considered by the supreme court or court of appeals as waived.' 1 Sayles, Tex. Civil St. 339. The defendants J. D. Sugg and E....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mabee v. McDonald
...234 U. S. 393, 34 Sup. Ct. 779, 58 L. Ed. 1363; Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 U. S. 769, 2 Sup. Ct. 91, 27 L. Ed. 468; Sugg v. Thornton, 132 U. S. 524, 10 Sup. Ct. 163, 33 L. Ed. 447; Arndt v. Griggs, 134 U. S. 316, 10 Sup. Ct. 557, 33 L. Ed. 918; York v. Texas, 137 U. S. 15, 11 Sup. Ct. 9, 34 L.......
-
Stewart v. Eaton
...those limits that a right to recognize a personal judgment against a nonresident without his consent is acquired. Sugg v. Thornton, 132 U.S. 524, 10 S.Ct. 163, 33 L.Ed. 447;De la Montanya v. De la Montanya, 112 Cal. 101, 115, 44 P. 345, 32 L.R.A. 82, 53 Am.St.Rep. 165; Atherton v. Atherton,......
-
Operative Plasterers', Etc., Ass'n v. Case
...of the United States was dismissed per curiam for lack of a substantial federal question, upon the strength of Sugg v. Thornton (1889) 132 U.S. 524, 10 S.Ct. 163, 33 L. Ed. 447, and United Mine Workers v. Coronado Coal Co. (1922) 259 U.S. 344, 42 S.Ct. 570, 66 L.Ed. 975, 27 A.L.R. 762. Jard......
-
Bemis v. Bayou Development Co.
...S.W. 236; Brophy v. Kelly, 5 Cir., 211 F. 22; Pantaze v. Fox Head Spring Beverage Co., 120 Tex. 270, 37 S.W.2d 724; Sugg v. Thornton, 132 U.S. 524, 10 S.Ct. 163, 33 L.Ed. 447. As before recited, the record shows that appellant was personally served with the non-resident notice of the filing......