Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Miller v. Davis

Miller v. Davis

180 S.W. 1140, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 1135
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 4, 1915
DocketNo. 8285.
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 180 S.W. 1140 (Miller v. Davis) 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
Miller v. Davis, 180 S.W. 1140, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 1135 (Tex. Ct. App. 1915).

Opinion

BUCK, J.

The defendant in error filed his original petition in the district court of East-land county on the 13th day of June, 1914. The suit was to enforce the collection of certain vendor’s lien notes in said petition mentioned, executed by Charles Pettit, Jr., in part consideration for the land in said petition described, and against C. R. Miller, as subsequent purchaser of said land, for which said notes were given. There were five of said notes in the sum of $350 each. Notes Nos. 1 and 2 had been fully paid at the date of suit, and there remained due and unpaid on note No. 3 $39 principal, and Interest on notes Nos. 3, 4, and 5. The notes provided that the failure to pay any note, or any installment of interest thereon, when due should, at the election of the holder, mature all of said notes. Plaintiff alleged:

“That said plaintiff is the owner and holder of all three said notes, and has elected to exercise his option and to mature all of said notes.”

Judgment was rendered for plaintiff against Charles Pettit, Jr., for $846.48, principal, interest, and attorney’s fees, and for foreclosure. No personal judgment was rendered against defendant Miller, plaintiff in error, but the land was ordered to be sold I divested of any claim of title of said Mil-I ler.

[1] By his first assignment plaintiff in error questions the sufficiency of the allegation in the petition as to the intention of the owner of the said notes to mature them. We think there is no merit in the assignment, and it is accordingly overruled.

[2] Under his second assignment an attack is made on the sufficiency of the service of citation on Charles Pettit, Jr., who has not appealed, and the return thereon by the sheriff of Denton county. Said return is as follows:

Came to hand on the 17th day of July, 1914, at 6 o’clock p. m., and executed in D'enton county, Tex., by delivering to each of the within named defendants in person á true copy of this citation (together with accompanying certified copy of the plaintiff’s petition), at the following times and places, to wit:
1Y6UfaoboJtu712c3CKW3

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

Related

Alicia Moreno v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995
Johnson v. Cole
138 S.W.2d 910 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1940)
Thomas v. Pure Oil Co.
297 S.W. 776 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
180 S.W. 1140, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 1135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-davis-texapp-1915.