Chandler v. Scherer

Citations

• 32 Tex. 573

Syllabus

<p>1— Return of service in the following form is good : “ Executed on the 13th of March, 1867, by delivering in person to the within named defendant, Willis Chandler, a true copy of this writ, and plaintiff’s petition accompanying the same.”</p> <p>2— If a person who is served with process as a defendant, he not, in fact, the defendant, he can make an issue of fact on the question of his identity with the person sued; and if he did not do that in the court below, this court must presume that the person against whom judgment was rendered in the court below was the true defendant, although the initial letter of his middle name be different in the judgment from that which is given in the petition.</p> <p>3— If service of process has been had upon co-defendants, but one of them has been designated in the original petition by a wrong middle name, and the plaintiff corrects the mistake by an amendment of his petition, it is not necessary that new process or service be had on either defendant.</p> <p>4— When the pleadings showed the true name of the defendant against whom the judgment was rendered, by a wrong name, the mistake in the judgment might be amended by the record at any time.</p> <p>5— No revenue stamp is requisite upon an instrument made before the passage of the act of Congress imposing stamp duties.</p>