Holmes v. McIntyre

61 Tex. 9, 1884 Tex. LEXIS 33
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 29, 1884
DocketCase No. 1637
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 61 Tex. 9 (Holmes v. McIntyre) 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
Holmes v. McIntyre, 61 Tex. 9, 1884 Tex. LEXIS 33 (Tex. 1884).

Opinion

Willie, Chief Justice.—

We are of opinion that the district court did not err in dismissing the appeal taken from the justice’s court for want of a sufficient affidavit of inability to pay costs.

The affidavit does not state the number of the case in which the appeal is taken, nor the court in which the judgment appealed from was rendered, nor the nature or the amount of the judgment entered up against him. From the affidavit itself no one could tell what judgment it referred to, as it contains no description which would identify it.

The reasons for which certainty sufficient to properly identify the judgment sought to be revised is required in. appeal bonds apply also to appeals taken upon affidavit of poverty. As they are familiar and established by frequent decisions, it will not be necessary to repeat them, but it will suffice to refer to some of the cases in which they will be found. Hollis v. Border, 10 Tex., 277; Smith v. Cheatham, 12 Tex., 37; Horton v. Bodine, 19 Tex., 280.

There is no error in the judgment, and it is affirmed.

Affirmed.

[Opinion delivered January 29, 1884.]

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

Related

Wesley v. Kuteman
62 S.W. 1074 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1901)
Perry v. Scott
7 S.W. 384 (Texas Supreme Court, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 Tex. 9, 1884 Tex. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-mcintyre-tex-1884.