Moore v. Janes
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Bowie. The defendant in error sued McLoskey, Rames, and Moore on a promissory note made payable to him by McLoskey and Rames, and guaranteed after its maturity by Moore. Service was acknowledged by McLoskey, and process ivas returned served on Moore, and as to Rames, not found in 'ibe county. The plaintiff discontinued as to Rames, and took judgment by default against the other defendants.
Read the full summary
Error from Bowie. The defendant in error sued McLoskey, Rames, and Moore on a promissory note made payable to him by McLoskey and Rames, and guaranteed after its maturity by Moore. Service was acknowledged by McLoskey, and process ivas returned served on Moore, and as to Rames, not found in 'ibe county. The plaintiff discontinued as to Rames, and took judgment by default against the other defendants. On t.lie fifth day of tiie term, before the meeting of the court, Moore, by counsel, filed an answer going- to the merits of Iho suit, and tiie plaintiff moved to strike it out on the ground that…
1Opinion of the CourtLipscomb, J.
The plaintiff in error assigns two grounds of error on which he asks a reversal of the judgment of the court below:
1st. That there is error in discontinuing as to one of (lie makers of the note without having shown that lie resided without the limits of the State or was insolvent.
2d. The court below erred in striking out the answer of the defendant.
The point presented by the first assignment was directly decided by this court in tiie case of Look et al. v. Henderson, (4 Tex. R., 303,) and we held that under our statute (Hart. Dig., art. 670) it was not, competputfor tiie plaintiff to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hewitt v. De LeonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1928
- E. L. & R. R. Ry. Co. v. ScottTexas Supreme Court · 1886
- Heath, Garnishee v. JordtCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1903