Hays v. Yarborough

21 Tex. 487
Texas Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1858·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Robebts, J.

The petition states the names of the plaintiffs in full, and the judgment reads: “ This day came the party plaintiffs, by their attorneys,” &c.; and further on, “considered by the Court that plaintiffs Yarborough & Ferguson do have and recover,” &c., meaning the same Yarborough & Ferguson, without repeating their given names, who had been mentioned as plaintiffs in the petition.

It would be better in rendering a judgment to avoid all' such abbreviations ; still it is not perceived that we can determine that it is error in this case. It is believed to be a very common practice so to render judgments in our Courts. It is admitted on the authority of Collins & Co. v. Hyslop & Son, (11 Ala. R. 508,) that had the word plaintiffs ” been used without being in connection with “ Yarborough & Ferguson,” that it would have been good, as it would then certainly refer to the plaintiffs, whose full names are set out in the petition. We cannot see that by mentioning a part of each one of the plaintiffs’ names, as “ Yarborough & Ferguson,” that it any less certainly refers to the plaintiffs named in the petition. Judgment affirmed with damages ten per cent,.

Affirmed with damages.

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

Hays v. Yarborough, 21 Tex. 487 (Tex. 1858).

21 Tex. 487 (Hays v. Yarborough) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brandt v. Brandt
189 So. 275 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
State Mortgage Corporation v. Traylor
36 S.W.2d 440 (Texas Supreme Court, 1931)
Bendy v. W. T. Carter & Bro.
14 S.W.2d 813 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1929)
Smith v. Switzer
270 S.W. 879 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Texas Packing Co. v. St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co
204 S.W. 120 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Hodges v. Robbins
56 S.W. 565 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1900)
Taylor v. A. G. Branham & Co.
35 Fla. 297 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1895)
Hecht v. Mothner
24 N.Y.S. 826 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1893)
Cooke v. Avery
147 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court, 1893)