Crawford v. Jones
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Gonzales. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. This was a suit by A. H. Jones, as guardian of Barry G. Anderson, against J. L. Crawford, James A. Crawford and A. W. Crawford, upon a promissory nótelas follows:— “ $199. Gonzales, January 1st, 1857. “ Twelve months after date, we, J. L. Crawford, as principal, and James A. 'Crawford and A. W. Crawford as securities, or either of us, promise to pay to A. H. J ones, guardian of Barry G. Anderson, or order, the…
Read the full summary
Error from Gonzales. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. This was a suit by A. H. Jones, as guardian of Barry G. Anderson, against J. L. Crawford, James A. Crawford and A. W. Crawford, upon a promissory nótelas follows:— “ $199. Gonzales, January 1st, 1857. “ Twelve months after date, we, J. L. Crawford, as principal, and James A. 'Crawford and A. W. Crawford as securities, or either of us, promise to pay to A. H. J ones, guardian of Barry G. Anderson, or order, the sum of one hundred and ninety-nine dollars, for value received, it being for the hire of a negro man,” &c. The plaintiff…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.
It appears plainly from the face of the note, made a part of the petition, that the plaintiff in error did not *383contract as principal, but as surety. It was error to dismiss as to the principal and take judgment against the surety. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Douthit v. Martin & Bro.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1897
- Sun Mutual Insurance v. George Seeligson & Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1883