Dikes v. Monroe & Brother
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Gonzales. The transcript showed that on the 28th of October there was a motion filed by the defendant, to quash the citation, because the names of the plaintiffs were “ not given in said writ the same as in the petition, and are not fully set forth.” On the 31st of same month, the plaintiffs moved that the Clerk be permitted to amend the citation by stating therein the full names of the plaintiffs. The first motion was overruled.
Read the full summary
Error from Gonzales. The transcript showed that on the 28th of October there was a motion filed by the defendant, to quash the citation, because the names of the plaintiffs were “ not given in said writ the same as in the petition, and are not fully set forth.” On the 31st of same month, the plaintiffs moved that the Clerk be permitted to amend the citation by stating therein the full names of the plaintiffs. The first motion was overruled. There was no entry disposing of the latter motion. Judgment by default. Mo bill of exceptions.
1Opinion of the CourtLipscomb, J.
This suit was brought on a note of hand,
made payable by the appellant to Monroe & Brother. The petition is in the name of Hugh William Monroe and John Monroe, trading under the firm and style of Monroe & Brother.
The citation, as presented by the record, is in conformity with the petition, but it is alleged that there had been an alteration in the original citation, by an interlineation, making it to correspond with the petition; that before the interline*237ation it was “ then and there to answer the petition of Monroe & Brotherthat the words “ H. W. Monroe and John Monroe, doing business under…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Graves v. DraneTexas Supreme Court · 1886
- Battle v. EddyTexas Supreme Court · 1868
- Moran Oil & Gas Co. v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1920
- Goodlett v. StampsTexas Supreme Court · 1867
- Putman v. Wheeler & RhodesTexas Supreme Court · 1886
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.