Case Name: Morris & Morris v. David S. Files
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1874
Citations: 40 Tex. 374
Docket Number: 
Parties: Morris & Morris v. David S. Files.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 374–379

Head Matter:
Morris & Morris v. David S. Files.
1. Although the record does not show a bill of exceptions to the action of the court overruling an application for continuance; yet the affidavit and action of the court refusing the application appearing in the transcript, the court, revised this action upon the sufficiency of the application.
On Rehearing.
3. The action of the court below overruling a motion for continuance must be excepted to, and bill of exceptions taken, or the appellate court will not revise such action.
8. It is improper to incorporate in the transcript an affidavit for continuance unless it he included in a hill of exceptions to the ruling of the court thereon.
4. Without a statement of facts, an assignment of error that the verdict is not sustained hy testimony will not he noticed unless error going to the foundation of the action he manifest on the record.
Appeal from Montgomery. Tried below before the Hon. James Masterson.
.David S. Files brought suit against Morris & Morris upon a written contract for the delivery of certain lumber alleged to be worth 0624.86. Plaintiff also sued out an attachment, which was, on the twenty-first of December, 1867,.levied on 20,000 feet of lumber, and upon the steam mill, fixtures, etc., the property of A. E. Morris, one of the defendants.
The defendants pleaded in offset certain claims, and in recónvention damages for the wrongful and malicious suing out of the attachment, and for excessive levy of same.
At June term, 1871, defendants’ application for continuance was overruled, but there is no exception to the action of the court refusing the continuance. The court excluded the evidence offered in support of the claim in reconvention.
Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, and motion for new trial was overruled. Ho statement of facts appears.
Morris & Morris brought the case to this court by writ of error, assigning for error the action of the court refusing the continuance and the motion for new trial.
John R. Peel, for plaintiffs in error.
James H. Baker & N. Hart Davis, for defendant in error.
A recovery could not be had for a '•'wrongful” issuance. (Harrison v. Harwood, 31 Texas, 651.)
There was no bill of exceptions to the ruling of the court refusing a continuance. (Note 595, Paschal’s Digest; Campion v. Angier, 16 Texas, 93; Harrison v. Cotton, 25 Texas, 53; Johnson v. Brown, 25 Texas Sup., 120.)
No testimony in support of the plea in reconvention Could have availed the defendants, nor for a “wrongful” issuance, because they did not declare upon the bond. (31 Texas, 651.)
Nor for a “malicious” issuance of the attachment, because it was sued out by an agent. (Drake on Attachments, Sec. 182; 7 Ala., 622; 11 Ala., 492.)

Opinion:
Walker, J.
This was an action brought in the District Court to recover on the breach of a contract for de-. livery of a large quantity of lumber.
An attachment was sued out and levied on the sawmill, fixtures, and about twenty thousand feet of lumber, belonging to "the plaintiffs in error.
The defendants below claim damages for the wrongful and malicious suing out of the attachment, and also plead by way of set-off.
The cause coming on to trial, a motion was made by defendants on affidavit for continuance; this motion was overruled, and the judgment of the court is assigned for error.
The defendants proposed to prove the wrongful suing out of the attachment, to which the plaintiff objected on .the ground that the plea in reconvention was not founded ' on the bond. The objection was sustained by the court, and an exception taken.
The defendant offered to read the bond in evidence, which was objected to, and the objection sustained, and exception taken. The plaintiff recovered judgment. A motion was made for a new trial, and overruled. The case is brought to this court on a writ of error.
We think there was error in overruling a motion for continuance; there was also error in ruling out the evi dence; and for these errors the judgment of the District Court is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion rendered January 13, 1873.
A rehearing was granted.