Bendy v. James Boyce & Co.

37 Tex. 443
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1873
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 Tex. 443 (Bendy v. James Boyce & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bendy v. James Boyce & Co., 37 Tex. 443 (Tex. 1873).

Opinion

Ogden, J.

The citations in each of these causes are defective in not containing the names of all the defendants. (Johnson v. Brown, 16 Texas, 554; Battle v. Eddy, 31 Texas, 368; Portwood v. Wilburn, 33 Texas, 715.) And the plaintiff below could not cure the defect by dismissing as to one of the parties. The return of the sheriff, that he Executed by serv “ ing H. B. Bendy with a copy, etc.,” is not a compliance with the requirements of the statute. (Thomason v. Bishop, 24 Texas, 302; Willie v. Thomas, 22 Texas, 175; Graves v. Robertson, 22 Texas, 130.) Under the defective citation and defective service, judgment was taken by default in each cause, and the defendant Bendy has sued out writs of error. For the defects in the citations and the sheriff’s return, the court below had no such jurisdiction of the person of the plaintiff in error, as would authorize a judgment by default. The judgment in each case is .therefore reversed, and the causes remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Oury v. Saunders
13 S.W. 1030 (Texas Supreme Court, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 Tex. 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bendy-v-james-boyce-co-tex-1873.