Unger v. Anderson's

37 Tex. 550
Texas Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1873·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Walker, J.

Without any allegation of the death, absence beyond the jurisdiction of the court, or insolvency of Hamilton, the principal in the note, or Daniels, the co-security of the plaintiff in error, it was error in the court to allow the plaintiff to dismiss as to them, Unger having set up in his answer that Hamilton was the principal and Daniels his co-security. (Wiley v. Pinson, 23 Texas, 488; Mitchell v. De Witt, 25 Texas Sup., 180; Pridgen v. Buchanan, 27 Texas, 593; Paschal’s Digest, Articles 4785, 4786, 4787 and 4788.)

The petition, as well as the amended petition, is defective. In a suit upon a promissory note, the plaintiff should aver the making and execution of the note, as well as the ownership. Authorities need not be referred to in support of these familiar, principles.

The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Unger v. Anderson's, 37 Tex. 550 (Tex. 1873).

37 Tex. 550 (Unger v. Anderson's) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Glasgow v. De Lapp
149 S.W.2d 128 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1941)
Barton v. Pochyla
243 S.W. 785 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1922)
Dillard v. A. G. McAdams Lumber Co.
141 S.W. 1023 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1911)
Grieb v. Stahl
107 S.W. 41 (Texas Supreme Court, 1908)
Hooks v. Bramlette
1 White & W. 500 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1880)