Blossman v. Letchford
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Brazos. Tried below before the Hon. Henry J. Jewett. Judgment by default in the Court below. No question was made in the Court below as to the sufficiency of the Sheriff’s return of the citation. The “ leave to amend the return” which was granted, was no doubt intended to cover a defect in the return of the attachment, which appeared to have been amended.
Read the full summary
Error from Brazos. Tried below before the Hon. Henry J. Jewett. Judgment by default in the Court below. No question was made in the Court below as to the sufficiency of the Sheriff’s return of the citation. The “ leave to amend the return” which was granted, was no doubt intended to cover a defect in the return of the attachment, which appeared to have been amended. The term “ perfected” is used by the District Courts, in this connection, to mean that it is then (at the time of entering judgment by default in publication cases) the next Term of the Court after that to which the citation was…
1Opinion of the Court
Hemphill, Ch. J.
Richard D. Blossom, the defendant below, was alleged in the petition to be a non-resident of the . State. His property was attached, and he was ordered to be cited by publication. Various errors have been assigned, but *649the only one insisted upon is, that there was no legal service of the citation. This was ordered in the process itself, to be published in the Lone Star and Texas Ranger, a newspaper published in the town of Washington, for four successive weeks before the return day : and the Sheriff returns that he executed the same by ordering the brief statement and writ to…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Treadway v. EastburnTexas Supreme Court · 1881
- Fitch v. BoyerTexas Supreme Court · 1879
- Burditt v. HowthTexas Supreme Court · 1876
- De Proy v. ProgakisTexas Commission of Appeals · 1925
- Glasscock v. BarnardCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1910
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.