Case Name: Zoraster Robinson et al. v. G. P. Mattison
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 451
Docket Number: 
Parties: Zoraster Robinson et al. v. G. P. Mattison.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 451–453

Head Matter:
Zoraster Robinson et al. v. G. P. Mattison.
A plaintiff may discontinue as to a joint maker of a note who is not served. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1448, Note 553.)
Where the defendant has plead the general issue, and it is not noticed by the court, he should move for a new trial or to set aside the judgment, or he cannot be heard on appeal.
Error from Leon. The case was tried before Hon. John Gregg, one of the district judges.
Mattison sued Robinson and three other joint makers of a promissory note. Conner, one of the defendants, acknowledged service; Z. Robinson was served by the sheriff. The “ defendants ” plead the general issue. The plaintiff" discontinued as to the defendants not served. In the judgment, no notice was taken of the plea, and the judgment was rendered as if for want of a plea against Robinson, Cregwin, and Cowen. Robinson and Cregwin appealed. The only errors noticed in the opinion were for having discontinued against the defendant not served, and against rendering a judgment as if by default when a plea was in.
Robert F. Gould, for plaintiff in error.
—Bo service ap-. pears to have heen had on E. T. Bobinson, nor process issued for him. Tet the plaintiff, when this case was tried, dismissed as to him, and took judgment for want of an answer against the others, although there was an' answer on file. It is contended that in both points the court erred.
" William D. Wood, for defendant in error.
—As to the answer being in when the judgment by default was taken, the plaintiffs in error cannot now avail themselves of this. They did not bring the fact to the notice of the court below. They were in court, and stood by and saw the judgment rendered by default, and said nothing; nor did they afterwards apprize the court of the fact of an answer being in, and by a motion ask the court to set aside the judgment and give them a new trial. . They cannot now be heard in this court to urge this objection. The case of Hopkins v. Donoho, 4 Tex., 336, is conclusive on this point.
As to right of plaintiff in court below to discontinue as to E. T. Robinson, see Ellis v. Park, 8 Tex., 205; also 5 Tex., 381.

Opinion:
Wheblbb, O. J.
—The action was upon a joint and several note, and it was therefore competent for the plaintiff to dismiss as to one of the defendants. Bepeated decisions of this court have settled, that where the cause of action is several, so that suit may be brought against one or more, without joining all who are liable to be sued, the plaintiff may dismiss as to one or more, and proceed to judgment against the other defendants.
The answer does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the court. If judgment was rendered by inadvertence when there was an answer in, the defendant ought to have brought it to the attention of the court by amotion' to set aside the judgment. He cannot be heard to make the objection in this court, having failed to make it below. (Hopkins v. Donoho, 4 Tex., 336.)
Judgment affirmed.