Damron v. Texas & St. Louis R. R.

1 White & W. 163
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 9, 1883
DocketNo. 2584
StatusPublished

This text of 1 White & W. 163 (Damron v. Texas & St. Louis R. R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Damron v. Texas & St. Louis R. R., 1 White & W. 163 (Tex. Ct. App. 1883).

Opinion

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 383. Appeal bond; misdescription of judgment in. Judgment was rendered in justice’s court on the 15th April, 1882. Appeal was taken to and bond filed by defendant in county court on April 20, 18S2, and in this appeal bond the judgment appealed from was described as one rendered on April the 15th, 1881. Motion to dismiss was made in the county court on the ground of variance of description as to the date of the rendition of judgment, and the motion was overruled. Held, a variance in an appeal bond in reciting the time at which judgment was rendered, is good ground for dismissing the appeal. [Lemon v. Stephenson, 40 Ill. 45; Dietrich v. Rumsey, 40 Ill. 50; Hendricks v. State, 3 Ct. App. 570.] If the judgment is misdescribed in the appeal bond, motion to dismiss on that ground should be sustained in county court. [McGarrah v. Burney, 4 Tex. 287.]

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Lemon v. Stephenson
40 Ill. 45 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1864)
Dietrich v. Rumsey
40 Ill. 50 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1867)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 White & W. 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/damron-v-texas-st-louis-r-r-texapp-1883.