Snow v. Hawpe

22 Tex. 168
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1858
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 22 Tex. 168 (Snow v. Hawpe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Snow v. Hawpe, 22 Tex. 168 (Tex. 1858).

Opinion

Wheeler, Ch. J.

The plaintiffs show, by their petition, that the judgment, which they seek to review and avoid, was obtained on service by publication, and on an ex parte hearing; and they aver that they had no notice, in fact, of the suit, and that they had a good defence to the action. This clearly entitled them to have the judgment set aside, and a new trial awarded in the former suit. (Hart. Dig. Art. 783; Mussina v. Moore, 13 Tex. Rep. 7; Kitchen v. Crawford, Id. 516.)

[172]*172The plaintiff, Mrs. Snow, being a married woman, at the date of the proceedings and judgment, in the case sought to be reviewed, and so continuing, is within the saving of the statute in respect to femes covert; and, consequently, is not barred of her action. (Hart. Dig. Art. 783.)

The plaintiffs allege, moreover, that the cause of action, upon which the judgment was obtained, was false and unfounded, and that the judgment rendered thereon, is fraudulent and void; and they make the record of the proceedings in the case, a part of their petition, and charge the defendants with notice of the illegality and fraud in the rendition of the judgment, and the proceedings thereon. The allegations of the petition are clearly sufficient to entitle the plaintiffs to have the judgment set aside, as to the defendant Eerris. The allegations of notice, are sufficient to charge the other defendants with all the consequences of the wrongful acts and proceedings of their co-defendant, and to avoid their purchases, at the sheriff’s sales, under the executions issued upon the judgment. There is, therefore, error in the judgment of the court sustaining exceptions to the petition, and dismissing the case; for which the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Collum v. Anderson
502 S.W.2d 598 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1973)
Commercial Credit Corp. v. Smith
187 S.W.2d 363 (Texas Supreme Court, 1945)
Middleton v. Moore
4 S.W.2d 988 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Benavides v. Lucio
297 S.W. 476 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
McCaulley v. Western Nat. Bank
173 S.W. 1000 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Gray v. Lawlor
90 P. 691 (California Supreme Court, 1907)
Cowan v. Brett
97 S.W. 330 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1906)
Brown v. Dutton
85 S.W. 454 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1905)
Crouch v. Crouch
70 S.W. 595 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1902)
Miles v. Dana
36 S.W. 848 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1896)
Morris v. Edwards
62 Tex. 205 (Texas Supreme Court, 1884)
Schleicher v. Markward
61 Tex. 99 (Texas Supreme Court, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 Tex. 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snow-v-hawpe-tex-1858.