Tex. & Pac. R'y Co. v. Rains

Court of Appeals of Texas

Tex. & Pac. R'y Co. v. Rains

2 Wilson 660

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 10, 1885

DocketNo. 3367

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Wilson 660 (Tex. & Pac. R'y Co. v. Rains) 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

Tex. & Pac. R'y Co. v. Rains, 2 Wilson 660 (Tex. Ct. App. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 752. Appeal bond from justice's court; misdescription of judgment in. On September 27, 1884, Rains recovered judgment against appellant in justice’s court, from which appellant appealed to the county court, and gave an appeal bond in which the judgment was described as one rendered November 27, 1884. On motion of appellee the appeal was dismissed because of this misdescription. Held: It was not necessary to state the date of the judgment, as it was otherwise sufficiently described to identify it, but it having been stated, and stated incorrectly, the judgment was misdescribed, and such misdescription cannot be considered a mere clerical mistake, and could not be amended or cured by giving a new bond. [W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 383, 491, 492, 811; ante, § 402.]

Affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 752. Appeal bond from justice's court; misdescription of judgment in. On September 27, 1884, Rains recovered judgment against appellant in justice’s court, from which appellant appealed to the county court, and gave an appeal bond in which the judgment was described as one rendered November 27, 1884. On motion of appellee the appeal was dismissed because of this misdescription. Held: It was not necessary to state the date of the judgment, as it was otherwise sufficiently described to identify it, but it having been stated, and stated incorrectly, the judgment was misdescribed, and such misdescription cannot be considered a mere clerical mistake, and could not be amended or cured by giving a new bond. [W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 383, 491, 492, 811; ante, § 402.]

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Wilson 660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tex-pac-ry-co-v-rains-texapp-1885.