Case Name: Samuel Whitaker v. Clement C. Fitch
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 308
Docket Number: 
Parties: Samuel Whitaker v. Clement C. Fitch.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 308–309

Head Matter:
Samuel Whitaker v. Clement C. Fitch.
The 14th section of the act of the 12th May, 1846, (which but re-enacts the 9th section of the act of the 28th December, 1836,) reads as follows: “Every sheriff and deputy sheriff shall indorse on all process and precepts coming to their hands the day on which they received them, the manner in which they executed them, and the day when they executed them, and shall sign their return officially." (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 5121, Note 1122.)
To authorize a judgment by default, the return on the citation should show a compliance with the statute, and one of the plain requirements of the ■statute is, that the return shall show the day when the writ was served.
(For full notes on the requirements for good service, see Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1433, Bote 545, p. 352.)
Error from Collin. The case was tried before Hon. Hat.,M. Bureord, one of the district judges.
The errors were assigned in the petition for the writ.
The facts are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court.
John C. Eastman, for the plaintiff in error.
—The certificate and teste of the clerk, as to the issuance of the citation, bears date “the 29th day of August, 1859,” and the sheriff indorses the writ as “having come to his hands August 27, 1859,” showing that it came to his hands two days before it purports to have been issued by the clerk.
The statute requires the clerk to state the time or date of the issuance of process, (0. & W. Dig., Art. 409;) and by the statute (O. & W., Art. 1856) the sheriff is required to state the time that process comes to his hands, as well -as the time and manner of serving process, &e.
The service in this case does not show the existence of such facts as will warrant the court in rendering a judgment by default.
I refer to Underhill v. Lockett, 20 Tex., 130; Graves v. Robertson, 22 Tex., 130; Willie v. Thomas, Ib., 175, and the cases there cited.
G. C. Binckley, for the defendant in error, obtained the judgment, but the Reporter finds no brief.

Opinion:
Kell, J.
—The service of the original citation in this cause reads as follows: "Gameto hand August 27,1859, and executed by delivering to the within named' defendant, Samuel Whitaker, a true copy of citation, and a certified copy of plaintiff's petition." This was signed officially by the sheriff.
There was judgment for the plaintiff by default.
It is alleged as error, that the return on the citation does not show when the service was made. We are of opinion that the service was not sufficient to authorize the judgment, and for the reason indicated. The statute requires that " the sheriff shall indorse on all process and precepts coming to his hands the day on which he received them, the manner in which he executed them, and the day when he executed them," &c. To authorize a judgment by default, the return on the citation should show a compliance with the statute, and one of the plain requirements of the statute is, that the return shall show the day when the writ was served.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause
Kemanded.