Ingram v. McClure

Court of Appeals of Texas

Ingram v. McClure

151 S.W. 339, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 672

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 24, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 151 S.W. 339 (Ingram v. McClure) 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

Ingram v. McClure, 151 S.W. 339, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 672 (Tex. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

LEVY, J.

[1, 2] The suit was filed in the justice’s court on a promissory note, and a judgment by default was entered. The defendant R. C. McClure carried the case to the county court by certiorari, giving the statutory bond. The county court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants for the amount of the note, interest, and attorney’s fees sued for, but refused to enter judgment against the sureties on the certiorari bond. ■ The chief question presented on the appeal is on the action of the court in refusing to enter judgment against the sureties on the bond given. The plaintiff was entitled to have judgment, rendered against the sureties on the certio-rari bond. Article 749, R. S. of 1911; Yates v. Collins, 19 Tex. 138. The face of the judgment shows a trial on the merits, and not a judgment by agreement. Por agreements of counsel to be enforced by the courts, the agreements must be made as provided by the rules of court. See rule 47 for district and county courts (142 S. W. xxi).

The judgment as entered by the trial court is here reformed so as to allow the plaintiff further to have judgment against C. B. Beard, J. A. Moore, and R. L. Hunt, sureties on the certiorari bond, for the amount of the judgment rendered against the defendants Fannie and R. C. McClure, and as so reformed the judgment is affirmed, costs of appeal to be taxed against.appellees.

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

LEVY, J.

[1, 2] The suit was filed in the justice’s court on a promissory note, and a judgment by default was entered. The defendant R. C. McClure carried the case to the county court by certiorari, giving the statutory bond. The county court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants for the amount of the note, interest, and attorney’s fees sued for, but refused to enter judgment against the sureties on the certiorari bond. ■ The chief question presented on the appeal is on the action of the court in refusing to enter judgment against the sureties on the bond given. The plaintiff was entitled to have judgment, rendered against the sureties on the certio-rari bond. Article 749, R. S. of 1911; Yates v. Collins, 19 Tex. 138. The face of the judgment shows a trial on the merits, and not a judgment by agreement. Por agreements of counsel to be enforced by the courts, the agreements must be made as provided by the rules of court. See rule 47 for district and county courts (142 S. W. xxi).

The judgment as entered by the trial court is here reformed so as to allow the plaintiff further to have judgment against C. B. Beard, J. A. Moore, and R. L. Hunt, sureties on the certiorari bond, for the amount of the judgment rendered against the defendants Fannie and R. C. McClure, and as so reformed the judgment is affirmed, costs of appeal to be taxed against.appellees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 S.W. 339, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingram-v-mcclure-texapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack