Case Name: Samuel H. Davis and others v. John S. McGehee
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1859
Citations: 24 Tex. 209
Docket Number: 
Parties: Samuel H. Davis and others v. John S. McGehee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 209–211

Head Matter:
Samuel H. Davis and others v. John S. McGehee.
The clerk of the District Court cannot alter the transcript of the record after it has been filed in the Supreme Court, for the purpose of correcting it.
A certiorari to correct the record, will not be granted upon the mere production, in the Supreme Court, of the original papers belonging to the District Court; they are not papers which should be retained by it, as the foundation of its action.
A motion for a certiorari to correct the record, should be supported by an affidavit, showing the mistake in the record.
Where the note sued on was signed A. B., for C. D., and the judgment is rendered against both, it will be reversed, although there be no statement of facts, or bill of exception.
Error from Bexar. Tried below before the Hon. Thomas J. Devine.
This was a suit by the defendant in error, John S. McGehee, against Samuel H. Davis, James H. Davis, and William Southerland, on a note, which appeared from the copy of it in the transcript, (before it was altered,) to have been signed, Samuel H. Davis for James H. Davis.
The citations were not copied into the record, but the answer purported to have been filed by the “ defendants,” and was a general exception, a general denial, and a failure of consideration, in this, that it was alleged “ that if such a note, as is described in plaintiff’s petition, was ever executed and delivered to plaintiff, the same was given for articles purchased by the said Samuel H. Davis, at a sale by the plaintiff, of household and farming utensils, which were falsely and fraudulently represented by the plaintiff to be new, but which were, in fact, old, broken, and worn out, and which had been mended, patched, and painted, for the purpose of defrauding the said defendant, whereby the consideration for said note, has wholly failed.”
The defendants’ exception was overruled, and there was a verdict and judgment against all of the defendants for. $276.10. There was no statement of facts, or bill of exceptions in the record ; and the only error assigned by them, was the overruling of their exception to the petition. The defendant in error suggested delay. He also applied for a certiorari, for a true copy of the note sued on, from which he alleged it would appear that the plaintiff in error, Samuel H. Davis, signed it for himself, and not for James H. Davis, as stated in the transcript; but his application was not sworn to.
The facts in relation to the motion for certiorari, and the alteration made in the record, are stated in the opinion of the court.
Wilcox f Leigh, for the plaintiffs in error.
John A. G-reen, for the defendant in error.

Opinion:
Roberts, J.
This case was submitted upon a suggestion of delay. Upon examination of the record, it appeared that Samuel H. Davis signed the note "for" James H. Davis, and not for himself. Supposing that there had been some mistake in the transcript, the attention of defendants' counsel was called to it, and it was handed back to him, to enable him, if he thought proper, to take measures to have it corrected, or that he might consider the course to be pursued, to meet or obviate this apparent difficulty, thus standing in the way of getting the judgment affirmed.
At a subsequent day, the court was informed, by counsel appearing for the defendant, that the clerk of the District Court, of Bexar county, was here, and had made the correction in the record, according to the original note attached to the petition here in his possession, and asked a certiorari to perfect the record. The court informed the counsel that his motion should be in writing. Whereupon, the motion for a certiorari was made, referring to the original petition, with the note attached, as the ground and support of the motion.
The motion is not sustained, because the original petition is not a paper which should be retained in this court as the foundation of its action, but belongs to the District Court, of Bexar county. There is no affidavit of the facts, in support of the motion, showing the mistake in the record.
The record having been returned to the court with this motion, now appears to be corrected, and instead of the word "for," the abbreviation "jr." is inserted after the name of Samuel H. Davis. We cannot recognise any such correction. We are satisfied that it was made imprudently, without thinking of its great impropriety.
Roberts, J.
The motion for certiorari is not sustained, because there is no affidavit made, showing a mistake in the record, nor is there anything shown in support of the motion, which would be a proper foundation for the action of this court.
The record shows, that Samuel H. Davis signed the note "for" James H. Davis; and it does not appear that he signed it for himself. The judgment by default is against him, Samuel H., as well as the other defendants. Therefore, as to him, the petition, as presented in the record here, does not contain a cause of action. Judgment is reversed and cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.