Hulme v. Janes
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Bowie. In this case suit was commenced against Burtridge, Peters, and Ilulme. The two latter accepted service. The former was not summoned by citation or publication. Judgment was entered by default against the defendants generally. The suit was not discontinued as against Burtridge, and for this error the judgment was sought to be reversed.
Read the full summary
Error from Bowie. In this case suit was commenced against Burtridge, Peters, and Ilulme. The two latter accepted service. The former was not summoned by citation or publication. Judgment was entered by default against the defendants generally. The suit was not discontinued as against Burtridge, and for this error the judgment was sought to be reversed. I. Tile court below erred in rendering judgment against the defendants, as there was no service on Burtridge or discontinuance as to him. H. The judgment is void as to Burtridge, and as a judgment cannot be divided, it therefore necessarily…
1Opinion of the Court
Hemphill, Ch. J.
The judgment is void as against Burtridge, and as it is indivisible in its nature it is necessarily void as against the other defendants.
The suit should have been discontinued, under the provisions of article 704 of the Digest, and judgment against the others would have been valid. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.
Judgment reversed.
2Cited by8 opinions
- Linn v. ArambouldTexas Supreme Court · 1881
- Wootters v. KauffmanTexas Supreme Court · 1887
- Long & Berry v. GarnettTexas Supreme Court · 1876
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. RicheyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1929
- Hume v. SchintzCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1897
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.