Garner v. Burleson
26 Tex. 348
Opinion
It cannot be doubted that the court below erred in overruling the motion to quash the attachment. (Hopkins v. Nichols, 22 Tex. R., 206.) But we are of opinion that the confession of judgment must be held to opéz-ate as a release of all errors in the record, and as binding upon the securities upon the replevin bonds, as Well as upon their principal. (Storey v. Nichols, 22 Tex. R., 87; Oldham & White’s Dig., art. 500.)
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Garner v. Burleson, 26 Tex. 348 (Tex. 1862).
26 Tex. 348 (Garner v. Burleson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Nissan v. Weiss (In Re Weiss)
235 B.R. 349 (S.D. New York, 1999)
Pinkard v. Hobbs Mfg. Co.
168 S.W.2d 539 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1942)
Lawyers Lloyds of Texas v. Webb
150 S.W.2d 181 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1941)
Provines v. Bell
83 S.W.2d 1050 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1935)
Southern Surety Co. v. Adams
278 S.W. 943 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
C. J. Gerlach & Bro., Inc. v. Du Bose
210 S.W. 742 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1919)
Parks v. Knox
61 Tex. Civ. App. 493 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1910)
Wandelohr v. Grayson County National Bank
108 S.W. 1154 (Texas Supreme Court, 1908)
Staller v. McDonald
3 Willson 457 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1888)
Donnenbaum v. Schram & Co.
2 Tex. L. R. 226 (Texas Supreme Court, 1883)
Dunnenbaum & Friedlander v. Schram & Co.
59 Tex. 281 (Texas Supreme Court, 1883)
Lessing v. Cunningham & Hardee
55 Tex. 231 (Texas Supreme Court, 1881)
Carpenter v. Pridgen
40 Tex. 32 (Texas Supreme Court, 1874)
Stokes & Leonard v. Potter
10 R.I. 576 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1873)