Edrington v. Allsbrooks
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Grimes. Tried below before Hon. P. W. Gray. Petition for injunction alleges that while the petitioner was ■absent from the State, suit was instituted against him by the plaintiff in error, and a judgment recovered against him for §97 67, and also judgment against other parties as garnishees.
Read the full summary
Error from Grimes. Tried below before Hon. P. W. Gray. Petition for injunction alleges that while the petitioner was ■absent from the State, suit was instituted against him by the plaintiff in error, and a judgment recovered against him for §97 67, and also judgment against other parties as garnishees. That the return of service in these words, “ The within writ was ordered to be published on the 25th July, 1856, which' has been done according to law, (signed,) M. Mays, Constable,” was insufficient; and that the ’ citation, if published at all, was by one insertion for one week only in a…
1Opinion of the Court
Hemphill, Ch. J.
The petition for injunction was verified by the proper person. The Statute of 1846 (Art. 1597, Hart. Dig.) declares that the petition shall be verified by the oath of the party, and unless there had been further provision, it might have been doubted whether the attorney, though fully > cognizant of the facts, could by his oath have satisfied the law. But the Act of January 11th, 1856, gives to the affidavit made by the attorney the same force and effect as if made by the principal, and is substantially an addition to the provision cited from the Statute of 1846.
If the petition…
2Cited by31 opinions
- Levy v. RoperTexas Supreme Court · 1923
- Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. WareTexas Supreme Court · 1889
- Dunn v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1906
- August Kern Barber Supply Co. v. FreezeTexas Supreme Court · 1903
- County of Anderson v. KennedyTexas Supreme Court · 1883
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.