Wright v. Another
| Decision Date | 01 January 1854 |
| Citation | 12 Tex. 35 |
| Parties | WRIGHT, ADM'R, v. WILLIAMS AND ANOTHER. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
The names of the parties, and the Term of the Court at which a judgment was rendered, do not, in a petition for a writ of error, constitute a sufficient description of the judgment. It seems that the number of the case, or the amount of the judgment, in addition, would be sufficient; or if a citation, containing a sufficient description of the judgment had issued, the objection would be obviated. (Note 12.)
Error from Lamar. Motion to dismiss.
J. T. Mills, for plaintiff in error.
Milwee and T. J. Jennings, for defendants in error.
The defendants in error have moved to dismiss the writ of error, because the petition does not contain sufficient certainty in the description of the judgment. It is as follows: &c.
It is manifest that this description would apply as well to any other judgment, rendered for the defendant in error against the plaintiff at that Term of the Court, as to that contained in the transcript brought up upon this petition. The only circumstances of identity, given by the petition, are the Term of the Court and the parties. Process was waived; consequently, there was no citation issued, and the want of certainty in the petition is not cured by anything in the record. Had the number of the case, or the amount of the judgment been given, that might have served sufficiently to identify and distinguish the judgment which it was proposed to have revised, from any other rendered at that Term between the parties; or if there had been a citation, containing a sufficient description of the judgment, the objection would have been thereby obviated. (Hillebrant v. Brewer, 5 Tex. R., 566.) But the petition is manifestly insufficient for the want of the requisite certainty; and as there is nothing in the record, by which it may be amended, the writ of error must be dismissed.
Motion sustained.
NOTE 12.--Forshey v. Railroad Company, 16 T., 516; Summerlen v. Reeves, 29 T., 85.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forshey v. G., H. & H. R.R. Co.
...all the costs incurred, it was held that the description of the judgment was sufficient, and a motion to dismiss was overruled. [5 Tex. 568;12 Tex. 35;29 Tex. 85.] An averment in the petition for a writ of error, that the defendant in error is not a resident of the state, will authorize ser......
-
Connelly v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.
... ... upon the verdict of March 15, 1906, nunc pro tunc ... Thereafter, at the same term, it filed another motion to have ... the judgment of March 15, 1906, corrected nunc pro tunc ... "by completing the same so as to conform to the judgment ... R. S. 1909; Garland v. Smith, 127 Mo. 567; ... Skidmore v. Davis, 10 Paige, 316; Martin v ... Rutherford, 6 Martin N. S. (La.) 281; Wright v ... Williams, 12 Tex. 35; Graham v. Sterns, 16 Tex ... 153; Cochrane v. Day, 27 Tex. 385; Hammond v ... Hays, 45 Tex. 846; Beard v. Arbucle, ... ...
-
Summerlin v. Reeves
...issued by the clerk properly described the judgment, a motion to dismiss will not be sustained. Pas. Dig. art. 1495, note 587; 5 Tex. 568;12 Tex. 36. Where one of the plaintiffs is not a party to the writ of error, and is not cited, it is a fatal objection. 4 Tex. 56;27 Tex. 526. In the cas......
-
Horton v. Wheeler
...and the court what judgment it is which the plaintiff seeks to have revised. The petition is more certain than in the case of Wright v. Williams (12 Tex. 35), in that it mentions the day of the term on which the judgment was rendered, and it could only be rendered uncertain what judgment wa......