McClelland v. Barnard

Court of Appeals of Texas

McClelland v. Barnard

80 S.W. 841, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 3, 1904 Tex. App. LEXIS 143

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 4, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 80 S.W. 841 (McClelland v. Barnard) 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

McClelland v. Barnard, 80 S.W. 841, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 3, 1904 Tex. App. LEXIS 143 (Tex. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL.

FISHER, Chief Justice.

At a previous day of this term we entered an order sustaining the motion to dismiss, on the ground that the appeal bond was not sufficient, in that the sureties on the bond appeared from the record to be the sureties on the appellants’ claimant’s bond. It appears from the record that judgment was entered against the appellants and the sureties on the claimant’s bond.

In holding that the bond was defective in this respect, we followed a line of cases by the courts of this State which in effect hold that the sureties upon the bond executed in a proceeding of this character and against whom judgment was rendered, were not competent sureties upon an appeal bond. A re-examination of the question has convinced us that we were wrong in requiring a new bond to be executed, and in holding that the original bond was defective. The later cases upon that subject, in effect, overrule the cases to which our attention was called, and in effect hold that the sureties upon a claimant’s bond, replevy bond and injunction bonds, and bonds of that character, may become sureties upon an appeal bond. People v. Rogers, 11 Texas Civ. App., 448; Carter v. Forbes, 22 Texas Civ. App., 665; Henderson v. Brown, 16 Texas Civ. App., 461; Sampson v. Solinsky, 75 Texas, 663, and 4 Texas Civ. App., 145.

Therefore we hold the original bond sufficient, and the order heretofore entered requiring a new bond to be filed is set aside.

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

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL.

FISHER, Chief Justice.

At a previous day of this term we entered an order sustaining the motion to dismiss, on the ground that the appeal bond was not sufficient, in that the sureties on the bond appeared from the record to be the sureties on the appellants’ claimant’s bond. It appears from the record that judgment was entered against the appellants and the sureties on the claimant’s bond.

In holding that the bond was defective in this respect, we followed a line of cases by the courts of this State which in effect hold that the sureties upon the bond executed in a proceeding of this character and against whom judgment was rendered, were not competent sureties upon an appeal bond. A re-examination of the question has convinced us that we were wrong in requiring a new bond to be executed, and in holding that the original bond was defective. The later cases upon that subject, in effect, overrule the cases to which our attention was called, and in effect hold that the sureties upon a claimant’s bond, replevy bond and injunction bonds, and bonds of that character, may become sureties upon an appeal bond. People v. Rogers, 11 Texas Civ. App., 448; Carter v. Forbes, 22 Texas Civ. App., 665; Henderson v. Brown, 16 Texas Civ. App., 461; Sampson v. Solinsky, 75 Texas, 663, and 4 Texas Civ. App., 145.

Therefore we hold the original bond sufficient, and the order heretofore entered requiring a new bond to be filed is set aside.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 S.W. 841, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 3, 1904 Tex. App. LEXIS 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclelland-v-barnard-texapp-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack