Zimmerman v. Pearson
| Decision Date | 18 May 1899 |
| Parties | ZIMMERMAN v. PEARSON et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Houston county; W. H. Gill, Judge.
Trespass to try title by George Zimmerman against Aaron Pearson. Plaintiff sequestered, and defendant replevied the land, and judgment was rendered against defendant and the sureties on his replevy bond. From an order of the court reforming the judgment as against the sureties, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Moore & Kline, for appellant. Moore & Newman, for appellees.
The appellant, George Zimmerman, as plaintiff below, brought this suit, as an action of trespass to try title, against Aaron Pearson for the tract of land described in the petition. He sued out a writ of sequestration, which was levied upon the land. The defendant, Pearson, replevied the land, giving as his sureties B. S. Elliott and J. H. Gregg. Amelia Hawkins intervened in the suit, but it is not necessary to further notice this intervention. The case was tried by the court without a jury, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff against Pearson for the land in controversy, and against the sureties on his replevy bond for writ of possession and all costs of suit. The defendant, Pearson, and his sureties, Elliott and Gregg, filed a motion to reform the judgment in so far as it was rendered against the sureties on the replevy bond. The court heard the motion, and granted the same, and reformed the judgment as prayed for. The plaintiff in the suit below has appealed, and complains of the action of the court as error in releasing the sureties upon the replevy bond from liability for costs. It has been expressly decided that the sureties upon a replevy bond executed in accordance with the statute for the replevy of real estate which has been sequestered are not liable to have costs of the suit adjudged against them. Rev. St. art. 4875; Henderson v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.) 41 S. W. 406. And, since the sureties upon the bond are not parties to the suit, it would not be error for the judgment to fail to award a writ of possession against them. The judgment of the court below will be affirmed. Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Walker
...Brown, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 464, 41 S. W. 406 (writ denied); McLeod v. Craig (Tex. Civ. App.) 43 S. W. 934 (writ denied); Zimmerman v Pearson (Tex. Civ. App.) 51 S. W. 523; Pipkin v. Tinch (Tex. Civ. App.) 97 S. W. 1077; McIntyre v. Emerson (Tex. Civ. App.) 132 S. W. 947; Tripplett v. Hendrick......
-
Riggle v. Automobile Finance Co.
...41 S. W. 406; Collier v. Myers, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 312, 37 S. W. 183; Rose v. Brantley (Tex. Civ. App.) 262 S. W. 194; Zimmerman v. Pearson (Tex. Civ. App.) 51 S. W. 523. This brings us to the fifth and last contention. It is not shown that there has been any violation of the provisions of e......
-
Rose v. Brantley
...favor of the plaintiff and interveners for all costs of suit. Henderson v. Brown, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 464, 41 S. W. 406; Zimmerman v. Pearson (Tex. Civ. App.) 51 S. W. 523. Reversed and ...