Wandelohr v. Grayson County Nat. Bank
| Decision Date | 21 October 1908 |
| Parties | WANDELOHR et al. v. GRAYSON COUNTY NAT. BANK et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
The original opinion holds that the sureties, Waples and Gunter, are entitled to make the objection that the judgment for damages was not rendered against Mrs. Wandelohr. This proposition is correct, and we have concluded that proper effect was not given to it in the disposition made of the case. It is true, as we held, that in such a proceeding judgment may properly be rendered, upon a replevy bond to which the names of two persons are signed as principal obligors, against only one of them and against the sureties, when the other principal, by reason of coverture, is not legally bound. Shipman v. Allee, 29 Tex. 17. In such a case those only who are legally liable upon the bond are, in the true sense, obligors therein, so as to fall within the statutory provision relied on by plaintiffs in error. And it may also be true that the decision of the trial court, for such a reason, that the discharged principal was not bound, would be conclusive on the sureties in any proceeding but an appellate one; but that proposition is not essential to this decision. This is an appellate proceeding, in which the holding of the trial court that Mrs. Wandelohr was not liable on the bond is assigned as an error committed against the sureties, and the question as to the correctness of that ruling is properly raised and must be decided, in order to determine whether or not the judgment against the sureties is correct. If Mrs. Wandelohr was liable for the damages adjudged to the defendant in error, she was an obligor in the bond in the sense of the statute, and judgment against her was essential to a correct judgment against the sureties.
On reconsideration, no doubt is entertained that the trial court erred in holding that Mrs. Wandelohr was not liable. Chapman v. Allen, 15 Tex. 285; Ryan v. Ryan, 61 Tex. 473; Cayce v. Powell, 20 Tex. 768, 73 Am. Dec. 211. The fact that the husband is joined in an action cannot justly be held to affect the power of the wife to execute such a bond, or not, as she, or the two together, may deem essential to the proper prosecution of her claims to the property involved. The statute authorizes the joinder, and when such a suit is prosecuted against husband and wife, and property claimed by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larson v. Hanson
...Crane Co. v. Specht, 39 Neb. 123, 42 Am. St. Rep. 562, 57 N.W. 1015; Wandelohr v. Grayson County Nat. Bank, 102 Tex. 20, 108 S.W. 1154, 112 S.W. 1046; Nickerson Chatterton, 7 Cal. 572; White Sewing Mach. Co. v. Hines, 61 Mich. 423, 28 N.W. 157; Standard Oil Co. v. Arnestad, 6 N.D. 255, 34 L......
-
Ward v. Scarborough
...71 S. W. 12, Wandelohr v. Rainey, 100 Tex. 471, 100 S. W. 1155, and Wandelohr v. Grayson County Natl. Bank, 102 Tex. 20, 108 S. W. 1154, 112 S. W. 1046, it was held, in effect, that a writ of error can be prosecuted after disposition of an appeal in the same case by other parties to the jud......
-
Garrett v. Dodson
...the principal. Wills v. Tyer, 186 S. W. 862, and authorities cited; Wandelohr v. Grayson County Nat. Bank, 102 Tex. 20, 108 S. W. 1154, 112 S. W. 1046. We think the court correctly refused to submit the first issue asking a finding whether the architect was unfair in his demands with regard......
-
Larson v. Hanson
...and it seems to have been a fraud upon the other defendants. In Wandelohr v. Grayson County National Bank, 102 Tex. 20, 108 S. W. 1154, 112 S. W. 1046, the court expressly declines to decide the question whether a separate action could be maintained on a joint and several bond, against one ......