Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Tex. 227

Moore v. Janes

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1851

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1851-07-01

Error from Bowie. The defendant in error sued McLoskey, Rames, and Moore on a promissory note made payable to him by McLoskey and Rames, and guaranteed after its maturity by Moore. Service was acknowledged by McLoskey, and process ivas returned served on Moore, and as to Rames, not found in 'ibe county. The plaintiff discontinued as to Rames, and took judgment by default against the other defendants.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1928

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1851-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Lipscomb, J.

¶1The plaintiff in error assigns two grounds of error on which he asks a reversal of the judgment of the court below:

¶21st. That there is error in discontinuing as to one of (lie makers of the note without having shown that lie resided without the limits of the State or was insolvent.

¶32d. The court below erred in striking out the answer of the defendant.

¶4The point presented by the first assignment was directly decided by this court in tiie case of Look et al. v. Henderson, (4 Tex. R., 303,) and we held that under our statute (Hart. Dig., art. 670) it was not, competputfor tiie plaintiff to discontinue as to one of the makers when there was an indorser or guarantor on the note unless the plaintiff' showed that such party as to whom he sought to discontinue ills suit resided without tiie limits of the State or in a depopulated county, or was insolvent. It does not appear that the party came within either of these exceptions in the case before us. The court below erred therefore in permitting the discontinuance as to Rames.

¶5The point presented by the second assignment of error was decided by tills court in tiie case of Wheat v. Davidson, (2 Tex. R., 196.) And it was i-tiled that if the answer was filed at anytime before a final judgment by default was asked, it ought to be received, and that its rejection, if so offered, would furnish sufficient ground for reversing the judgment.

¶6Wo have no disposition to disturb either of the decisions referred to.

¶7The case of Look and another v. Henderson, cited above, is not repugnant to tiie decision of the court in Petty v. Cleveland. (2 Tex. R., 404.) This case was decided mainly on tho ground that, tiie security, Petty, liad relied on another defense, and did not ask tiie opinion of the court, nor was there, any decision on Ills rights as a security. It was therefore considered as having been waived by him. On the fullest consideration we are satisfied that the *115case of Look et al. v. Henderson was correctly decided. The judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause remanded.

¶8Judgment reversed.

/6/tex/227 · .json · Public domain