Underhill v. Thomas

24 Tex. 283
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1859
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 24 Tex. 283 (Underhill v. Thomas) 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
Underhill v. Thomas, 24 Tex. 283 (Tex. 1859).

Opinion

Roberts, J.

The statute requires the clerk of the Supreme Court to certify the judgments of the Supreme Court, to the courts from which the causes were brought. (O. & W. Dig. 415.) It does not prescribe the time when this shall be done. The mandate, in this case, was filed during the term, and after the first day thereof. The judgment by default, was taken the next day after the filing.

The plaintiffs must be held to have known that their cause was disposed of in the Supreme Court, and was therefore liable to be sent into the District Court for its action. Upon them, process had been served; and when the mandate was filed in the District Court, the case stood as it had done before the first [285]*285judgment was rendered. They were in court, through the process served on them. They were at liberty to make any defence which they had. Not having made any, the plaintiffs below had a right to discontinue as to those not served with process, and take their judgment by default as to those served. Judgment affirmed with damages.

Affirmed with damages.

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

Related

R. B. George MacHinery Co. v. City of Midland
54 S.W.2d 559 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)
Montague County v. White
260 S.W. 907 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Guadalupe County v. Johnston
20 S.W. 833 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 Tex. 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/underhill-v-thomas-tex-1859.