Hollis v. Border
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Sail Augustine. Motion to dismiss the appeal, based on alleged defects in the appeal bond— 1st. Misdescription of the judgment. 2d. The want of sufficient sureties. Motion by appellants to continue, with leave to give a new appeal bond. Wo think the motion to dismiss ought not to prevail in this ease. The bond is regularly filed in the papers of the case in the court below, and there can he no doubt as to the ease to which it is intended to apply.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sail Augustine. Motion to dismiss the appeal, based on alleged defects in the appeal bond— 1st. Misdescription of the judgment. 2d. The want of sufficient sureties. Motion by appellants to continue, with leave to give a new appeal bond. Wo think the motion to dismiss ought not to prevail in this ease. The bond is regularly filed in the papers of the case in the court below, and there can he no doubt as to the ease to which it is intended to apply. It mentions part of the defendants correctly, and that it fails to mention' all, it seems to us, does not render it defective.…
1Opinion of the Court
Hemphill, Oh. J.
The latter objection, we are of opinion, cannot he maintained ; for, although J. B. Johnson, one of the sureties, was co-defendant in the judgment against appellants, yet there are two sureties against whom there is no such objection. Appellants are required to give bond with two or more sureties; and if two be given the requisites of the law are satisfied. The receiving of a co-defendant as a surety is, however, highly objectionable, as it may be possible that his sufficiency and not that of the actual sureties was the real ground of approval.
The first objection, viz,…
2Cited by10 opinions
- King v. HopkinsTexas Supreme Court · 1874
- Scranton v. BellTexas Supreme Court · 1872
- In re the Estate of O'HaraTexas Supreme Court · 1883
- Davis v. EstesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1893
- Holmes v. McIntyreTexas Supreme Court · 1884
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.