Williams v. Downes
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Houston. The case was tried before Hon. Reuben A. Reeves, one of the district judges. The returns read: “Executed August 10,1860, by delivering to W. W. Williams a copy of this citation, and a certified copy of plaintiff’s petition.” And “ Executed the same day, by delivering to John H. Bennett, in person, a true copy of the within citation, and also a true copy of the plaintiff’s petitiofi.” The judgment was by default.
Read the full summary
Error from Houston. The case was tried before Hon. Reuben A. Reeves, one of the district judges. The returns read: “Executed August 10,1860, by delivering to W. W. Williams a copy of this citation, and a certified copy of plaintiff’s petition.” And “ Executed the same day, by delivering to John H. Bennett, in person, a true copy of the within citation, and also a true copy of the plaintiff’s petitiofi.” The judgment was by default. Plaintiffs prosecuted error, but assigned no error. The defendant in error suggested delay.
1Opinion of the CourtWillie, J.
Our statute makes it the duty of the sheriff" to indorse on all process and precepts coming to Ms hands the day on which he received them, the manner in which he executed them, and the day when he executed them, and to sign his return officially. (O. & W. Dig., Art. 1856.) Upon an examination of the writ in this case, directed to the sheriff for service on Bennett, we find that the return thereon does not show when it was received, or when service of the same was made. Every defendant against whom suit is brought to the district court is entitled to five full days’ notice thereof previous to…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Stephens v. AustinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1927