Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

28 Tex. 172

Batey v. Dibrell & Brother

Texas Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1866

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1866-12-15

Error from G-uadaloupe. The case was tried before Hon. A. W. Terrell, one of the district judges. The writ of error in this case was sued out by H. H. Batey and J. H. Fennell, against whom there was judgment below, on a forfeited delivery bond, in favor of Dibrell & Brother. The return made by the sheriff upon the writ of error is stated substantially in the opinion of the court. ' The transcript was taken out by the defendants in error, and filed in this court.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1866-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1935

5 state decisions

2018661870188018901900191019201930decided

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 defendants in error filed the transcript in this cause, and submit it with a suggestion of delay. There is no assignment of errors in the record. The suggestion of delay, however, operates as a waiver of this want, and necessarily brings in review the whole cause, and to the notice of the court any error apparent.

¶2The service of the writ of error is defective. It does not appear from the sheriff’s return that a copy of the petition for writ of error was served on the defendants, as is required. (O. & W. Dig., Arts. 411, 416, 554.) The return is, that it was served by delivering to the defend*174ants copies of writ and copies of the same. The sheriff may have meant the copy of the petition that accompanied the same; this is only to be inferred. It may or it may not be a correct inference. The time and manner of the service must be fully stated by the sheriff. It must appear that he delivered, to the defendants in person copies of both the writ and petition, or the service will be imperfect. (19 Tex., 56; 20 Tex., 130.)

¶3In this cause we must treat the service as imperfect and a nullity, and hold that the defendants are not bound to notice it for any purpose. (24 Tex., 302.) The cause then •stands upon the transcript filed by the defendants in error, without process served upon them below. The practice of this court hitherto is believed to have been, not to dismiss-the cause peremptorily, but to permit the defendants to appear here and waive the want of service, and give the plaintiffs in error notice of the pendency of the .cause in this court, in order that they may have an opportunity to account for them apparent delay in perfecting service of the writ below and filing the transcript here, and to show error in the cause for its reversal, if they can do so.

¶4The defendants in error could have acknowledged service of the writ of error in the court below before taking out the transcript, and that would have been notice to the plaintiffs in error. But the service of the writ not having been perfected, or any notice given to the plaintiffs in error that the defendants have filed the transcript here, we are not at liberty to proceed with the cause. Therefore it is dismissed from’ this court without prejudice to a future writ of error.

¶5Dismissed.

/28/tex/172 · .json · Public domain