Ennis v. Crump
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Austin. This was a suit brought by the appellants as administrators of George W. Reynolds against William E. Crump and John Coker, on a joint and several promissory note, payable to Cornelius Ennis, administrator of A. J. Reynolds, one of the plaintiffs, and indorsed by him to Cornelius Ennis and E. C. Reynolds, administrators of G. W. Reynolds. At the Fall Term, 1848, the defendants answered separately, each by a general denial.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Austin. This was a suit brought by the appellants as administrators of George W. Reynolds against William E. Crump and John Coker, on a joint and several promissory note, payable to Cornelius Ennis, administrator of A. J. Reynolds, one of the plaintiffs, and indorsed by him to Cornelius Ennis and E. C. Reynolds, administrators of G. W. Reynolds. At the Fall Term, 1848, the defendants answered separately, each by a general denial. At the Spring Term, 1S49, the death of the defendant Coker was suggested and the plaintiff discontinued as to him. At the same term the defendant Crump,…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
The only question presented hv the record is whether, after the death of the defendant Coker, it was competent for his codefendant, Crump, to sot up the defense that lie was but surety of the former for the purpose of defeating (he action under the provision of the statute which gives the surety (lie privilege of not being first sued. And we are of opinion that it was not. Under (lie decisions of tliis court that defense could not avail the defendant. in t his action.
Note 13.—A surety cannot insist that the administrator of the deceased maker of the'note sued on should be made a defendant.…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Reed v. BuckTexas Supreme Court · 1963
- Boggs v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1876
- Buck v. ReedCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1962
- McDonald v. HoltTexas Commission of Appeals · 1881