Higgins v. Shepard

107 S.W. 79, 48 Tex. Civ. App. 365, 1908 Tex. App. LEXIS 452
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 8, 1908
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 107 S.W. 79 (Higgins v. Shepard) 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
Higgins v. Shepard, 107 S.W. 79, 48 Tex. Civ. App. 365, 1908 Tex. App. LEXIS 452 (Tex. Ct. App. 1908).

Opinion

FISHEE, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment by default against the appellant in favor of Charley Shepard and Mary Shepard, his wife, and the only question that arises is whether the citation issued and served upon her was sufficient.

The land sued for by appellees is situated in Hays County, and the appellant resides in that county, and this is not a case in which the law requires a copy of the petition to accompany the citation, and in this instance the return of the officer upon the citation shows merely a service of a copy of the citation upon appellant. The citation does not state the names of all the plaintiffs. It is to the effect that “Charley Shepard et uxor are plaintiffs.” The statute requires the citation to give the names of the parties, and there is also a law that requires judicial proceedings to be conducted in English. But if it could be assumed that “et uxor” means “and wife” and that she was the wife of “Charley Shepard,” that would not be sufficient, for it is held in Heath v. Fraley, 50 Texas, 209, that when the wife is a party plaintiff with her husband, it is necessary for the citation to state her name. This case is approved in Durham v. Betterton, 79 Texas, 224. In Weems v. Watson, 91 Texas, 35, it is held that the statutory requirements are mandatory. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Whisenant v. Thompson Bros. Hardware Co.
120 S.W.2d 316 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1938)
Brecheen v. Wink Independent School Dist.
89 S.W.2d 293 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1935)
Temple Lumber Co. v. McDaniel
24 S.W.2d 518 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Jarrell v. United States Realty Co.
270 S.W. 1079 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Chaffin v. Wm. J. Lemp Brewing Co.
248 S.W. 715 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1923)
Moran Oil & Gas Co. v. Anderson
223 S.W. 1031 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1920)
McCaulley v. Western Nat. Bank
173 S.W. 1000 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Crenshaw v. Hempel
130 S.W. 731 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 S.W. 79, 48 Tex. Civ. App. 365, 1908 Tex. App. LEXIS 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/higgins-v-shepard-texapp-1908.