Booth v. Holmes
Texas Commission of Appeals
Appeal from Wise county. Opinion by Walker, P. J. Statement.— This was a suit brought by J. M. Holmes against J. W. Booth, M. W. Shoemaker, FT. M. Crenshaw and Samuel Woody, on a joint and several promissory note. Defendant Shoemaker only answered that Booth was principal in the note, and the other defendants were his sureties, and prayed that the fact as to that allegation be inquired into by the jury, and judgment be rendered according to facts.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Wise county. Opinion by Walker, P. J. Statement.— This was a suit brought by J. M. Holmes against J. W. Booth, M. W. Shoemaker, FT. M. Crenshaw and Samuel Woody, on a joint and several promissory note. Defendant Shoemaker only answered that Booth was principal in the note, and the other defendants were his sureties, and prayed that the fact as to that allegation be inquired into by the jury, and judgment be rendered according to facts. Cause submitted to a jury; verdict and judgment for plaintiff against all parties. The jury found that Shoemaker was surety, and the judgment was…
1Opinion of the Court
*233Opinion.— Said service against Booth must be held insufficient under decisions made by the supreme court in Henderson v. Pugh, 46 Tex., 211; Brown v. Robertson, 28 Tex., 555, and Brown v. Marquez, 30 Tex., 77. Also Graves v. Robertson, 22 Tex., 132, and Willie v. Thomas, 22 Tex., 175. It is held in Faver v. Robinson, 46 Tex., 204, that a petition, citation and service on John B. Pavers will not support a judgment by default against John B. Paver. The mere misspelling of a defendant’s name by the sheriff in his return, where the misspelt name is idem sonans with the true name, does not…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Covington v. BurlesonTexas Supreme Court · 1866
- Graves v. RobertsonTexas Supreme Court · 1858
- Faver v. RobinsonTexas Supreme Court · 1876
- Hendon v. PughTexas Supreme Court · 1876
- Willie v. ThomasTexas Supreme Court · 1858
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.