Case Name: William L. Barnett v. L. B. Tayler
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1867-10
Citations: 30 Tex. 453
Docket Number: 
Parties: William L. Barnett v. L. B. Tayler.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 30
Pages: 453–456

Head Matter:
William L. Barnett v. L. B. Tayler.
Where suit' was instituted against W. L. B. and 0. 0. B., as makers, and P. L. H., as indorser, and the citation which issued for 0. C. B. was served upon W. L. B., it was no service which 0. 0. B. was bound to respect, and the judgment by default against him is erroneous.
The 45th section of the act regulating proceedings in the district court provides for the discontinuance as to defendants not served, with a proviso; but this section shall not be so construed as to allow a plaintiff to discon tinue as to the principal, and take judgment against the indorser or surety jointly sued. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1448, Note 553.) This article is to be construed with reference to section 46, which declares, that no judgment shall be rendered against the indorser as surety, unless the judgment is at the same time rendered against the principal, except where the plaintiff discontinues as to the principal, because he resides beyond the limits of the state, or is insolvent. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1449, Note 554.)
Error from G-uadaloupe. The case was tried before Hon. A. W. Terrell, one of the district judges.
The facts are fully set out in the opinions of the judges.
William B. Leigh, for the appellant.
Parker $ Miller, for the appellee.

Opinion:
Willie, J.
This action was brought by defendant in error against W. L. Barnett, the plaintiff in error, and 0. 0. Benham and P. L. Herron, upon a promissory note. A citation issued' for 0. 0. Benham, and was placed in the hands of the sheriff of Gonzales county, who returned it. " Executed by delivering to the said defendant, William L. Barnett, in person, a certified copy of the plaintiff's original petition or copy of this writ. The said defendant, 0. 0. Ben-ham, is not to be found in Gonzales county." Service was duly had upon the defendant, Herron, and the suit having been dismissed as to 0. 0. Benham, not served, judgment was rendered against Barnett and Herron. Barnett alone prosecutes the writ of error upon the judgment, and assigns for error, that the judgment was rendered without any citation having been issued requiring him to appear and answer the petition. This exception to the judgment is well taken. The citation directed to the sheriff of Gonzales county only authorized him to summon the defendant, Benham, .and his service of the same upon Barnett was not a compliance with the requirements of the writ. It was a departure from the command contained therein. The copy which lie delivered to Barnett did not require the latter to appear and answer the petition, and his failure to do so did not place him in default. The judgment was erroneous, and must he reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings. The defendant,' Herron, does not prosecute the writ of error, but as he was merely an indorser of the note upon which the suit was brought, Barnett and Benham being the principals, and judgment by default was taken against him, the judgment must be reversed as to him also. (Houston v. Ward, 8 Tex., 124; Bayless v. Daniels, 8 Tex., 140.)