Dickenson v. McDermott's E'xors
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Lavaca. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the Court
Hemphill, Ch. J.
The first question is as to the alleged error in refusing to amend the fiat, and fix the amount in which the bond should be given. The statute requires the Judge, in the order granting the injunction, to state the *250amount of the bond. This was not done in this case. The suit was ordered to issue on the petitioner executing bond in the terms of the law. A bond was executed and approved in a sum at least double the amount of that alleged to be due. The injunction issued, and the question is whether the omission by the Judge, to fix the amount of the bond, is without remedy—and…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Long v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1910
- Lion Bonding & Surety Co. v. AustinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1919
- Ford v. WiedCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1992
- Floyd v. RustTexas Supreme Court · 1883
- Patton v. AshworthCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1934
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.