Case Name: Burleson v. Henderson
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1849-12
Citations: 4 Tex. 25
Docket Number: 
Parties: Burleson v. Henderson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 25–31

Head Matter:
Burleson v. Henderson.
Were there no statutory provision requiring the parties to be named in the writ, the omission of one or more of the defendants, under such circumstances as to preclude the probability of the defendants being misled, would not be a fatal defect.
The proper construction of the ninth and tenth sections of the act to regulate proceedings in the District Courts is that where there are several defendants, the names of all must be stated in the citation, which is required to be issued to each of the defendants. (Note 10.) ■Where the service of the citation appears from tho record to bo defective, it is not incumbent on the defendant to appear and make tho objection in the court below; but the same may, if lie do not appear, be taken advantage of by writ of error. (Note 11.)
Rehearing.
It has been the practice in this State for parties who may consider themselves aggrieved to prosecute appeals or writs of error either in tho names of ail or in their own separately, if the others refuse to join, without the delay or the formalities of summons and severance; and there appears no sufficient reason for a change, especially where the rule to be substituted is obnoxious to the objections of delay, circu-ity, and expense, with nearly, if not entirely, the same ultimate effects of the present rule. (Note 12.)
It appears to be the more convenient rule that where a judgment is entire, where the judgments are not distinct and independent, or where the parties have not distinct and independent interests, and where the judgment operates to the prejudice of all the defendants, a reversal as to one shall operate a reversal as to the whole; and this may be regarded as the general rule, subject to such modifications as may meet the justice of the case under review, and which may be in harmony with our system of procedure or with the rules of practice as recognized in either the common-law or equity jurisdiction. (Note 13.)
Error from Travis. Snit by Henderson, Governor, for the use of the State, against Nicholas Boyer, David Ilolduman, and Edward Burleson, upon a bond conditioned for the payment, by Boyer, to the collector of customs for the district of Galveston, &e. A citation was issued to each defendant, requiring- him “ to be and appear before the honorable tho District Court, to be held in and “ for the county of Travis, on tho second Monday after the first Monday “ in March next, to answer the petition of James B. Henderson, Governor, “ exhibited against him, a copy of which accompanies this writ,” &c. No appearance for either of tho defendants. Judgment by default against all. Writ of error by Burleson alone. Error assigned, that the citation which was served on tho plaintiff in error described the petition as exhibited against him alone, whereas the petition in this ease appeared to be exhibited against him and two others.
Hamilton, for plaintiff in error. There was no notice to Burleson or either of the other defendants of the pendency of the suit of the Governor, for the use of the State, against them jointly, and upon which judgment was obtained. The writs were notice to them respectively that there was a suit instituted by the State against him upon whom it was served. The District Court actof 1846, section 9, requires the cleric, when a petition is filed, “to issue a writ or eita- “ tion, directed to the sheriff or other proper officer ol the county or counties “ in which the petition alleges the defendant or defendants are, requiring him “ to summon the defendant or defendants to appear at the proper term of the “ court, then and there to answer the plaintiff’s petition, a certified copy of “ which shall accompany each writ or citation,” &c.
This contemplates that the writ or citation shall either fully advise the party of the particular suit instituted against him, or shall be attached to a copy of the petition in such way that there could be no probability of a mistake. If the original writ is relied on as full evidence, in connection with tlie officer’s return upon it, then it (the writ) must show that the party was notified of the particular suit; and if the copy of the petition served upon tire party is relied upon as notice of the particular suit, theu the sheriff’s return upon the original petition, or in some other form equally certain, must show that it was a copy of the petition upon which judgment is sought. (1 Cow. It., 37.)
It cannot he said that the parties were not misled by the notices served; for it is impossible for tins court to know that suits were not instituted against each of the parties separately, by the Governor of tlie Slate, upon the same cause of action mentioned in tlie petition in the same transcript or upon a different one; to which suits, according to tlie uot-ice in tlie record, they may have responded. If the notices are such as might have misled the parties, they are bad. (4 Cow. It., 60; 1 Pet. It., GS3.)
Tlie fact of notices to each of tlie defendants appearing in the record cannot aid the defect. Tlie sufficiency of tlie notice, to bind (.lie parties, must appear from the separate writs served upon them, and not from an inference drawn from the fact of the writs in the transcript being directed one to each of the parties against whom the petition was filed. There are writs, it is true, to each of the defendants; but each describes a different suit, neither of them being the one upon which judgment is rendered.
Webb, for defendant in error.
The record shows that the plaintiff in error, Burleson, was sewed with tlie writ and copy of tlie petition. The copj of the petition gave him full notice of the nature of the suit he was called upon to answer. The writ is in the very terms of tlie statute, which states, “If there he “more than one defendant, the cleric shall issue a citation to each, accompanied “ with a copy of the petition.” (Acts of 1816, p. 336, seo. 0.)

Opinion:
Hemphill, Oh. J.
The ground assigned for the reversal of the judgment rendered by default against the plaintiff in error and two others is the want of legal notice to this defendant in the court below of the pendency of the suit.
A citation ivas issued to eacii of the defendants, and by one of these the plaintiff in error was summoned to answer the petition of defendant here (who was plaintiff in the court below) exhibited against him, the two other defendants not being named in tlie citation. A copy of the petition served with the writ showed the suit was instituted against others as well as himself. The 9th section of ibe act to regulate proceedings in tlie District Courts (Laws of 1840, p. 360) requires tlie clerk to issue a writ or citation to each defendant; and the 10t.li section, among other requisites, declares that tlie writ11 shall state the "names of tlie parties to the suit."
"Were, there no statutory provisions requiring the parties to he named in the writ, tlie omission of one or more of tiie defendants, under such circumstances as to preclude the probability of the defendants being misled as to the pendency of a parlicular suit or proceeding, would not he a fatal defect. If lie have notice of the action and of tlie time and place to set up his defense, the purposes of justice would he defeated by suffering an irregularity, which could not operate injuriously to (lie party, to paralyze further'pvoceedings in tlie cause.
In the case of Alexander et al. v. Brown (1 Pet. R., 684) the notice.stated the bond to be taken by virtue of an execution issued against William B. Alexander, whereas it was issued in fact against William B. and Richard B. Alexander. It was admitted that the bond was taken on this execution, and that this was the only execution in which the said William B. Alexander was a party. The notice was held sufficient, on the ground that the party could not mistake the case on which the motion was to ho made. The appellant refers to the case, and attempts to show that the principle governing that decision is not applicable to the cause under review. That the bond sued on here is joint and several, and the recital of the petition being exhibited against the defendant alone, would most likely mislead him, and induce the belief that a separate action had been instituted, and to which he was cited to respond.
Without inquiring whether the argument is well founded, or whether the citation, irrespective of the statute, would, under the circumstances of tills case, be fatally defective, it is sufficient to say that the statute requires the parties to he named iu tlic writ; and this provision being disregarded, the citation cannot be sustained. The defect might have been cured liad the defendant appeared and pleaded to the suit; hut having failed to do so, lie was not properly before the court, and the judgment is unauthorized, and must he reversed. (2 Tex. R., 422.)
It is ordered that tlic judgment ho reversed as to the plaintiff in error; that the citation he set aside, and that such further proceedings be had in the cause as may to law and justice appertain.