Putman v. Wheeler & Rhodes
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Galveston. Tried below before the Hon. W. H. Stewart. . Royal T. Wheeler and Harry W. Rhodes, co-partners in the practice of law, brought this suit, in the district court of Galveston county, against Hattie E. Putman, to recover damages for breach of contract," alleging, in substance, that they were duly employed as attorneys and lawyers, September 12, 1884, by Hattie E. Putman, to represent her in the administration of the estate of her deceased husband, and…
Read the full summary
Error from Galveston. Tried below before the Hon. W. H. Stewart. . Royal T. Wheeler and Harry W. Rhodes, co-partners in the practice of law, brought this suit, in the district court of Galveston county, against Hattie E. Putman, to recover damages for breach of contract," alleging, in substance, that they were duly employed as attorneys and lawyers, September 12, 1884, by Hattie E. Putman, to represent her in the administration of the estate of her deceased husband, and against his next of kin, who were claiming the entire estate, valued at $250,000, to her exclusion; that for their…
1Opinion of the Court
Robertson, Associate Justice.
The law requiring the names of the parties to be stated in a citation was not changed, but continued, by the Revised Statutes. In certain cases the service of the writ is now perfect without delivering a copy of the petition, and for this reason new features have been added to the citation. But the requirement that the names of the parties shall be stated in the writ remains as it was before, and, as it was before, has been held fulfilled by stating in the writ the partnership names of the plaintiffs, when the suit is by partners. Andrews v. Ennis, 16 Tex. 46;…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dikes v. Monroe & BrotherTexas Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by4 opinions
- Cooke v. AverySupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Parker v. BoylesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1946
- Scarbrough v. WheelerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1914
- De Walt v. Zeigler & McIlhennyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1894