Little v. Crittenden
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Red River. The defendant in error iiled his petition on the 5th day of May, 1S31. The court commenced its session on the 10th of the mouth, and on the 17th, the plaintiff having iiled an affidavit of the justness of the debt, as directed by the statute, (Dig., art. 770,) the plaintiff in error and another, his co-defendant below, appeared in open court and confessed judgment, which was thereupon entered with the benelit of a stay of execution.
1Opinion of the CourtWiieelek, J.
It is objected tiiat it does not appear that, in the confession *97of judgment, tho amount for which it was confessed was specified; and we are referred to our opinion in the ease of Montgomery v. Barrett. (8 Tex. It.) Tlie suit, in this case, was upon the irromissory note of the defendants, which is made a part of the petition. There is no pretense that there was or could he any misapprehension on the part of the defendants as to tlie effect of their confession of judgment, or the amount for which they thereby authorized the entry of judgment. Nor is there any pretense that it was entered for…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Storey v. NicholsTexas Supreme Court · 1858
- Frazier v. Woodward, Squires & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1884
- Frazier v. Woodward, Squires & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1884