Groesbeck v. Campbell

38 Tex. 36
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1873
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

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.

Bluebook
Groesbeck v. Campbell, 38 Tex. 36 (Tex. 1873).

Opinion

Walker, J.

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

Price v. Smith
109 S.W.2d 1144 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 Tex. 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/groesbeck-v-campbell-tex-1873.