Miller v. Gaar-Scott Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Miller v. Gaar-Scott Co.

141 S.W. 1053, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 514

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 23, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 141 S.W. 1053 (Miller v. Gaar-Scott Co.) 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. Gaar-Scott Co., 141 S.W. 1053, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 514 (Tex. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

HIGGINS, J.

This suit was instituted in the county court of Harris county by defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error upon certain notes described in plaintiff’s petition and for the foreclosure of a chattel mortgage upon certain personal property securing the payment thereof. Judgment was rendered for the principal, interest, and attorney’s fees provided for in said notes, together with foreclosure of lien.

[1] The sheriff’s return upon the citation issued in the cause shows that the same was served upon “Harman” Miller, instead of *1054 “Herman” Miller, and it is contended that this service was insufficient upon which to base the judgment herein. We are of the opinion that the doctrine of idem sonans applies, and the assignment of error raising this question is overruled. Kahn v. Herman, 3 Ga. 266; Ogden v. Bosse, 86 Tex. 342, 24 S. W. 798; Lyne v. Sanford, 82 Tex. 58, 19 S. W. 847, 27 Am. St. Rep. 852.

[2] It is also urged that the petition was insufficient to warrant the recovery of the attorney’s fees provided for in the notes. In the absence of special exception, the petition, in that respect, was sufficient, and, the same being by default, judgment was properly rendered for the attorney’s fees. Maddox v. Craig, 80 Tex. 600, 16 S. W. 328; Bank v. Robinson (Sup.) 135 S. W. 372; Lanier v. Jones (Sup.) 136 S. W. 255; Rutherford v. Gaines (Sup.) 120 S. W. 261; Smith v. Norton (Civ. App.) 133 S. W. 733.

Delay is suggested. We have examined the record and find no errors apparent, and the judgment is therefore affirmed. The prayer of defendant in error for assessment of damages for alleged delay, however, is refused.

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

HIGGINS, J.

This suit was instituted in the county court of Harris county by defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error upon certain notes described in plaintiff’s petition and for the foreclosure of a chattel mortgage upon certain personal property securing the payment thereof. Judgment was rendered for the principal, interest, and attorney’s fees provided for in said notes, together with foreclosure of lien.

[1] The sheriff’s return upon the citation issued in the cause shows that the same was served upon “Harman” Miller, instead of *1054 “Herman” Miller, and it is contended that this service was insufficient upon which to base the judgment herein. We are of the opinion that the doctrine of idem sonans applies, and the assignment of error raising this question is overruled. Kahn v. Herman, 3 Ga. 266; Ogden v. Bosse, 86 Tex. 342, 24 S. W. 798; Lyne v. Sanford, 82 Tex. 58, 19 S. W. 847, 27 Am. St. Rep. 852.

[2] It is also urged that the petition was insufficient to warrant the recovery of the attorney’s fees provided for in the notes. In the absence of special exception, the petition, in that respect, was sufficient, and, the same being by default, judgment was properly rendered for the attorney’s fees. Maddox v. Craig, 80 Tex. 600, 16 S. W. 328; Bank v. Robinson (Sup.) 135 S. W. 372; Lanier v. Jones (Sup.) 136 S. W. 255; Rutherford v. Gaines (Sup.) 120 S. W. 261; Smith v. Norton (Civ. App.) 133 S. W. 733.

Delay is suggested. We have examined the record and find no errors apparent, and the judgment is therefore affirmed. The prayer of defendant in error for assessment of damages for alleged delay, however, is refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 S.W. 1053, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-gaar-scott-co-texapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack