Adkins v. Forehand

Decided July 1, 1853

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1853-07-01

<p>where the residence of the defendant was stated by the orignal petition to be in the county of Harrison where the suit was brought, and the petition for a writ of error contained no averment that the defendant in error was a non-resident at the time of suing out the writ, and it did not appear by the return of the sheriff or otherwise that he could not be found in the county to which the, writ was directed: Held, That service'on the attorneys of record was irregular, and the writ of error was dismissed. (Note 48.)</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1915

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1853-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Wheeler. J.

¶1There was service of the writ of error on the attorneys of record, and the defendant in error moves to dismiss for the want of legal service.

¶2In the original petition the residence of the defendant in error is stated to be in tlie county of I-Iarrison. There is no averment in tiie petition for the. writ of error that the defendant in error was a non-resident at the time of suing out the writ; nor does it appear by the return of the sheriff or otherwise that he could not be found in the county to which the writ was directed. The service on the attorneys, therefore, appears to have been irregular, and the writ of error must be dismissed. (Hart. Dig., art. 793; 3 Tex. R., 514.)

¶3Writ of error dismissed.

¶4Note 48. — Hughes v. Burleson, post 290; Roberts v. Sollibellus, post 352; Forshey v. Railroad Co., 16 T., 510; Holloman v. Middleton, 23 T., 537; McLamore v. Heffner, 31 T., 180; Laws v. Harris, 33 T., 700.