First National Bank of Decatur v. Preston National Bank

Court of Appeals of Texas

First National Bank of Decatur v. Preston National Bank

22 S.W. 1048, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 545, 1893 Tex. App. LEXIS 318

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 28, 1893

DocketNo. 36.

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 22 S.W. 1048 (First National Bank of Decatur v. Preston National Bank) 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

First National Bank of Decatur v. Preston National Bank, 22 S.W. 1048, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 545, 1893 Tex. App. LEXIS 318 (Tex. Ct. App. 1893).

Pincite

Opinions

TARLTON, Chief Justice.

This suit was instituted in the District 'Court of Wise County by the appellee, the Preston National Bank, of Detroit, Michigan, to recover the sum of $500, besides interest and attorney fees, the amount of a certain promissory note which is alleged to have been executed by the defendants. These defendants were as follows: The First National Bank of Decatur, Texas, Charles Moore, Daniel Waggoner, J. F. Ward, George W. Trenchard, W. D. Mabon, and William Cameron & Co., a firm composed of William Cameron, F. A. McDonald, W. B. Brazelton, C. L. Johnson, and C. M. Bowie, all alleged to be doing business as partners under the firm name of “ The Decatur Rolling Mill Company.”

The suit resulted in a judgment as follows: (1) In favor of the appellee against the defendants for the sum of $601.32, with interest and costs; (2) in favor of the defendant Charles Moore against the defendants the First National Bank, Daniel Waggoner, and G. W. Trenchard, for “ all sums of money that may be collected from them on account of this judgment;” (3) in favor, conditionally, of the defendants William Cameron & Co. and J. F. Ward against the appellant bank, G. W. Trenchard, *546 and Daniel Waggoner for “ all sums of money that they may be required to pay on account of this judgment.”

It thus appears that there is hostility of interest in the judgment appealed from between the appellant and the defendants Charles Moore, William Cameron & Co., and J. F. Ward.

■ In the appeal bond filed by the appellant, the appellee is the sole obligee.

To confer jurisdiction upon the appellate court, it is imperative that the appeal bond shall be made payable to all parties in the judgment interested adversely to the appellant; and where this has not been done, it-is the duty of the appellate court, of its own motion, to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Greenwade v. Smith, 57 Texas, 195; Young, v. Russell, 60 Texas, 684.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Dismissed.

Delivered November 29, 1892.

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

TARLTON, Chief Justice.

This suit was instituted in the District 'Court of Wise County by the appellee, the Preston National Bank, of Detroit, Michigan, to recover the sum of $500, besides interest and attorney fees, the amount of a certain promissory note which is alleged to have been executed by the defendants. These defendants were as follows: The First National Bank of Decatur, Texas, Charles Moore, Daniel Waggoner, J. F. Ward, George W. Trenchard, W. D. Mabon, and William Cameron & Co., a firm composed of William Cameron, F. A. McDonald, W. B. Brazelton, C. L. Johnson, and C. M. Bowie, all alleged to be doing business as partners under the firm name of “ The Decatur Rolling Mill Company.”

The suit resulted in a judgment as follows: (1) In favor of the appellee against the defendants for the sum of $601.32, with interest and costs; (2) in favor of the defendant Charles Moore against the defendants the First National Bank, Daniel Waggoner, and G. W. Trenchard, for “ all sums of money that may be collected from them on account of this judgment;” (3) in favor, conditionally, of the defendants William Cameron & Co. and J. F. Ward against the appellant bank, G. W. Trenchard, *546 and Daniel Waggoner for “ all sums of money that they may be required to pay on account of this judgment.”

It thus appears that there is hostility of interest in the judgment appealed from between the appellant and the defendants Charles Moore, William Cameron & Co., and J. F. Ward.

■ In the appeal bond filed by the appellant, the appellee is the sole obligee.

To confer jurisdiction upon the appellate court, it is imperative that the appeal bond shall be made payable to all parties in the judgment interested adversely to the appellant; and where this has not been done, it-is the duty of the appellate court, of its own motion, to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Greenwade v. Smith, 57 Texas, 195; Young, v. Russell, 60 Texas, 684.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Dismissed.

Delivered November 29, 1892.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 S.W. 1048, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 545, 1893 Tex. App. LEXIS 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-of-decatur-v-preston-national-bank-texapp-1893.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack