Courand v. Vollmer
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Medina. The case was tried before Hon. George H. Noonan, one of the district judges. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. The only question was as to the necessity of a bond for certiorari being under the statute, which uses the word “bond.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from Medina. The case was tried before Hon. George H. Noonan, one of the district judges. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. The only question was as to the necessity of a bond for certiorari being under the statute, which uses the word “bond.” (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 468, Note 331.) The chief justice followed the views in Foster v. Champlin, 29 Tex., 22, and Russell v. McCampbell, 29 Tex., 37. Mr. Justice Lindsay followed Read v. Levy, 30 Tex., 738. The question will doubtless be settled by legislation.
1Opinion of the CourtMorrill, C. J.
—This suit was brought before a justice’s court, and transferred to the district court by certiorari.
The appellee moved in the district court to dismiss the cause, because the obligors in the bond for the certiorari did not add a scroll or seal to their names, and therefore the bond was defective.
The motion was sustained by the district court, and the decision of the judge in this respect is the error assigned in this court.
The constitution of the Republic of Texas (Art. IV, sec. 13) provides that “ the congress shall, as early as practicable, introduce by statute the common law of England, *399wi…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Harris v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1983
- Hamilton v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Miller v. LetzerichTexas Supreme Court · 1932
- Gowin v. GowinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
- Giles v. PonderCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1955
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.