Case Name: D. B. Thomas v. David Goodman
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 446
Docket Number: 
Parties: D. B. Thomas v. David Goodman.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 446–447

Head Matter:
D. B. Thomas v. David Goodman.
Where the return upon the original citation was not signed, the service was insufficient.
Where a sheriff makes affidavit that service of the writ was duly made, and proceeds to amend his return after service of citation in error, and without any authority from this court: held, that it cannot he regarded as any part of the proceedings in the case.
Error from Dallas. The case was tried before Hon. Hat. M. Bureord, one of the district judges.
Goodman sued Sayre and Thomas as a firm on two promissory notes, hut at the trial he dismissed as to Sayre, and took judgment by default against Thomas. The sheriff served the summons or writ upon Thomas, and made a proper return of such service, but neglected to sign his return. The fact of his not signing his return was overlooked, and judgment taken against defendant, Thomas. The transcript shows that, during vacation, the sheriff amended his return, and filed an affidavit that he served Thomas in the manner stated in his return. This affidavit was made after service of citation in error. Thomas had alleged for error want of service, because’there was no signature to the sheriff’s return.
Geo. W. Guess, for plaintiff in error.
—This was a judgment by default, hut the return upon the writ was not signed by the sheriff or other officer. This is fatal to the judgment on error. (Hart. Dig., Art. 2894; O. & W. Dig., Art. 416-417, and reference; Blossman v. Letchford, 17 Tex., 647; Underhill v. Lockett, 20 Tex., 130; also 22 and 23 Tex.)
The attention of the court is called particularly to the last page of the transcript, where it will be seen that, on the 6th day of October, 1860, about ten months after the rendition of said judgment, there has' been an attempt made to complete the service by falsifying and changing the record; and that, too, when there was no court in session. And the clerk, to keep from certifying to a falsehood, has tried to obviate the difficulty by inserting the word “contains ,” &c.; meaning, I suppose, that though there is a part inserted which is no part of the record, yet still the true record is in the transcript somewhere. It is not supposed that the papers filed as “returned on summons amended,” and the affidavit filed on 6th October, 1860, will be at all considered by the court. They are certainly not “ a copy of the proceedings had in the case,” and as such the clerk should not have inserted them in the transcript, and he only gets around what he knows to be wrong by making an equivocal certificate to the transcript. Hence he puts in the word “contains.”
Nicholson Ferris, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Bell, J.
—The returp. upon the original citation was not signed by any one, and the service was therefore insufficient. Judgment by fault was rendered. Afterwards, and when the court was not in session, the sheriff filed an affidavit, stating that service was duly made of the writ, and proceeded to amend his return. This affidavit was made by the sheriff, and the amendment of his return was made long after service of citation in error, and without any authority from the court. These acts cannot be regarded as any part of .the proceedings in the case.
The judgment is reversed because of the insufficiency of the service, and the cause is remanded fol* proper proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.