Case ID: tex_3/html/0167-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "■Chief Justice Hemphill", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Reuben W. Reynolds vs. Charles Adams and Hiram Sadler
    — Error from Lamar County.
    An error in not discontinuing as to a defendant not served with process, in a suit against two, will not affect the validity of the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant who was served, and defended against the suit.
    This is a suit upon a promissory note, brought by the plaintiff Reynolds against Charles Adams and Hiram Sadler. Process was duly served upon Sadler, but not upon Adams. Ho discontinuance appears to have been entered as to Adams, but the canse went on to trial between Reynolds and Sadler. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant.
    Milwee for plaintiff in error.
    Ho appearance for defendant in error.
   ■Chief Justice Hemphill

delivered the opinion of the court. The suit was commenced in 1813, and at the fall term, 1846, the jury found a verdict for the defendants. There is no statement of facts, nor bills of exception, or errors alleged or assigned in the' record.

If there be error from the want of a discontinuance as to one-of the defendants not served with process, it is one which should not affect a judgment rendered for the defendant who appeared and contested the demand. The judgment is affirmed.