Cook v. Beasley
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Robertson County. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant to the spring term, 1845, of the district court. At that term an interlocutory judgment by default was taken, after which the judgment by default was set aside and it was ordei’ed that the plaintiff give security for costs in sixty days or the cause be dismissed and that the cause stand continued until the next term of the court.
Read the full summary
Error from Robertson County. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant to the spring term, 1845, of the district court. At that term an interlocutory judgment by default was taken, after which the judgment by default was set aside and it was ordei’ed that the plaintiff give security for costs in sixty days or the cause be dismissed and that the cause stand continued until the next term of the court. At the fall term next thereafter, Barry Gillespie, Esq., one of the attorneys for the plaintiff, moved the court for permission to give security for costs in obedience to the order of the…
1Opinion of the Court
’WriEELER, J.
The only question presented is, whether there was error in dismissing the cause when ample security was tendered and good cause shown why it had not been given within the time prescribed. And we cannot entertain a doubt that there was error in this ruling.
The statute under which the rule was entered (1 vol. Laws, 203,. sec. 17) was examined in reference to its construction in the case of Houston v. Roberts (decided at this term), and we need not repeat the view then presented. The present differs from that case in the circumstance of notice having been given of the rule entered;…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. RichmondTexas Supreme Court · 1889
- Hoover v. BarkerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1974
- Posey v. AikenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1897