Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

28 Tex. 117

Dickson v. Burke

Texas Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1866

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1866-12-15

Error from Hill. The case was tried before Hon. John Gregg, one of the district judges. It appears by the record that the citation was served upon Ingram, the partner and co-defendant of the plaintiff in error, on the 8th day of October, 1859. All other facts • appear in the opinion of the court.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1866-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1932

3 state decisions

1018661870188018901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Smith, J.

¶1—The defendant in error, Burke, instituted this suit upon two promissory notes and a mortgage executed by “ Dickson & Ingram,” a mercantile firm composed of the said William W. Dickson and George W. Ingram. At the fall term, 1859, of the District Court of Hill county, a joint judgment was rendered against them by default in favor of the defendant for $2,294 84, and the mortgaged property ordered to be sold.

¶2Dickson has brought the case to this court alone by writ of error, his co-defendant, George W. Ingram, in the court below, not joining in the writ, or being before this court in any way.

¶3Dickson assigns as error, that citation was not served on him five days before the return term, excluding the days of service and return.

¶4*118Citations are, by law, made returnable on the first day of the term of the court after the same is issued, and the defendant is not compelled to plead at the. return term unless the citation shall be served at least five days before the first day of the return term, exclusive of the days of service and return. (O. & W. Dig., Art. 415.)

¶5The citation in this cause" was issued against Dickson on the 3d day of October, 1859, and made returnable on the fourth Monday after the third Monday in September, 1859, the first day of the next term of the District Court of the county of Hill, from which it issued; which day was the 17th of October, 1859. The service of the citation was made on the 12th day of October, 1859, and there being less than the five days’ service, exclusive of the days of service and return, there was error in the court rendering judgment by default against the defendant Dickson at that term of the court, and for that the judgment must be reversed.

¶6The judgment having been rendered jointly against the said Dickson & Ingram, the judgment must be also reversed as to Ingram, though he be not before this court by the writ of error or otherwise. (Willie et al. v. Thomas et al., 22 Tex., 175; 4 Id., 59; 11 Id., 367.)

¶7Therefore it is ordered, that the judgment below be reversed as to both William W. Dickson and George W. Ingram, and this cause is remanded below for further proceedings, in conformity with this opinion.

¶8Reversed and remanded.

/28/tex/117 · .json · Public domain