Case ID: tex_38/html/0626-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ogden, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John F. Brown et al. v. A. J. Hunter.
    1. A petition sufficiently sets out the name of the plaintiff when it follows the note on which the suit is brought.
    2. A sheriff’s return is sufficient showing that he had delivered to C. D., in person, one of the defendants, a copy of the citation and the accompanying certified copy of plaintiff’s petition.
    Error from Hays. Tried below before the Hon. J. P. Eichardson.
    Suit on a promissory note payable to A. J. Hunter, and signed by the plaintiffs in error.
    The petition described the plaintiff as he was named in the note sued on, and in other respects was in usual form of petition on promissory note by the payee and against the makers.
    The sheriff’s return was as follows :
    “'Came to hand 26th March, 1872, and executed 30th April, 1872, by delivering to Joe F. Brown, in person, one of the defendants, a true and correct copy of this writ, together with the accompanying certified copy of plaintiff’s petition.
    “ J. B. Beowe", Sh’if Hays Co., Texas.”
    Judgment final by default was rendered for amount-due on the note.
    The defendants sued out a writ of error. The assigned errors are noticed in the opinion.
    No counsel for plaintiffs in error.
    
      Montgomery & Wheeler, for defendant in error.
   Ogden, P. J.

The petition in this case is certainly in-artistically drawn, without much regard to form or precedent, but we are inclined to hold it sufficient. The plaintiffs in error executed their note, payable to A. J. Hunter, and we think they should be bound according to their promise ; besides we are not informed that “A. J.” is not the full Christian name of plaintiff; and if so, then the petition is in full compliance with the statute in that respect.

The objection raised to the return by the sheriff upon the citation is untenable, as clearly decided in Cummings v. Rice et at., 9 Texas, 528; and in Edmonson v. Yates, 25 Texas, 373; and in Graves v. Robertson, 22 Texas, 131; and Thomas v. Bishop, 24 Texas, 302. There is no sufficient error in the judgment of the lower court to authorize a reversal, and it is affirmed, without damages.

Affibmed.