Terry v. Schultz

Decision Date03 December 1896
Citation38 S.W. 374
PartiesTERRY v. SCHULTZ.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Action by R. S. Terry, executor, against Charles Schultz. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Dismissed.

George T. Todd and R. R. Taylor, for plaintiff in error. L. S. Schluter, for defendant in error.

WILLIAMS, J.

The statement of facts in this case shows that the only defendant, Charles Schultz, was dead when the judgment in his favor was rendered. The petition for writ of error states this fact, but does not make any other person a party to the proceeding. The error bond is made payable to the dead man, reciting at the same time that he is dead. Service of the writ of error is waived by the attorney for "the defendant in error," and the briefs are filed by the same counsel, signed as attorney "for defendant in error, C. Schultz." Under repeated decisions, this court has no jurisdiction of the case, and the writ of error is dismissed. Dial v. Rector, 12 Tex. 99; Johnson v. Robeson, 27 Tex. 526; Smith v. Parks, 55 Tex. 82. Dismissed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Saner-Ragley Lumber Co. v. Spivey
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 12, 1921
    ...an appellate court. Teas v. Robinson, 11 Tex. 775; Telegraph Co. v. Wofford, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 427, 72 S. W. 620, 74 S. W. 943; Terry v. Schultz, 38 S. W. 374; Bargna v. Bargna, 157 S. W. 754; Simmang v. Cheney, 155 S. W. While statutory provision has been made in this state for the prosecu......
  • Newell v. Lafarelle
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • November 18, 1920
    ...a deceased person, is void, and confers no jurisdiction upon this court. Appellee refers us to Railway Co. v. Neal, 65 S. W. 49; Terry v. Schultz, 38 S. W. 374; Simmang v. Cheney, 155 S. W. 1199; Walter Box Co. v. Blackburn, 157 S. W. 220; Clark v. Lowe, 58 Tex. Civ. App. 576, 124 S. W. 733......
  • Simmang v. Cheney
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 16, 1913
    ...99; Johnson v. Robeson, 27 Tex. 526; Smith v. Williams & Parks, 55 Tex. 87; Futch v. Palmer, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 191, 32 S. W. 566; Terry v. Schultz, 38 S. W. 374; Ry. Co. v. Neal, 65 S. W. 49; Telegraph Co. v. Wofford, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 427, 72 S. W. 620, 74 S. W. Writ of error dismissed. ...
  • Blakey v. Perry
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 3, 1896

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT