Groesbeck v. Campbell
This text of 38 Tex. 36 (Groesbeck v. Campbell) 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.
Opinion
A judgment against a remote endorser after dismissal as to the maker of the note, was erroneous; but this is not a proper case for injunction after more than one year had elapsed from the date of judgment. (Art. 3931, P. D.) Nor was a bill of review the proper remedy. The case should have been brought up on error. (Art. 1489, P. D.; Larson v. Moore, 1 Texas, 27; Seguin v. Maverick, 24 Texas; Lewis v. San Antonio, 26 Texas, 317.)
There is no prayer in the petition for a new trial on the merits. Error of law is all that is complained of.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
38 Tex. 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/groesbeck-v-campbell-tex-1873.