Peters v. Crittenden

8 Tex. 131
Texas Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1852·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Hemphill, Ch. J.

The plaintiffs in error assign eight grounds for the reversal of the judgment, no one of which appears to be well taken.

There may, perhaps, be some irregularity in not taking an interlocutory judgment by default against Vandyke, who did not appear, but the stature provides only that this may be done, and not positively that it shall be entered. The statute also declares that but one final judgment shall be given in the suit. (Art. 706, Dig.) When this is done, the rendition of tlie prior interlocutory judgment becomes immaterial. If it be error, it is one of which the plaintiffs-in error cannot complain, as it saves them from costs which would otherwise have been increased.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Peters v. Crittenden, 8 Tex. 131 (Tex. 1852).

8 Tex. 131 (Peters v. Crittenden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commercial Corp. v. Krueger
262 P. 937 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1927)
Business Men's Mutual v. Lockhart
291 S.W. 658 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Smith v. Candle Creek Dredging Co.
7 Alaska 195 (D. Alaska, 1924)
Mann v. Mitchell
243 S.W. 734 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1922)
Herold v. Coates
129 N.W. 998 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1911)
Beham v. Ghio
12 S.W. 996 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1889)
Caldwell v. Brown
43 Tex. 216 (Texas Supreme Court, 1875)