Edmiston v. Edwards
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Houston. The case was tried before Hon. Betjben A. Beeves, one of the district j udges. The first bond for certiorari was not conditioned as the law requires, nor was it under seal. The plaintiff was allowed to execute a new bond, tó which the defendant excepted.
1Opinion of the CourtLind'say, J.
—The only error assigned in this case which requires the notice of this court, and upon which the appel-” lant relies for a reversal, is the permission the court below gave the appellee "to file a new bond after he had quashed *173the bond executed for the obtention [obtaining?] of the writ of certiorari for insufficiency.
There can be no doubt that a writ of certiorari, issued without the execution of a bond at all, would be illegal, as the statute requires the execution of a bond as a prerequisite to the obtention [?] of the writ. But the execution of a bond, however defective it may he, is a…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Armstrong v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1934
- Armstrong v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1934