Daugherty v. Cartwright

Citations

• 31 Tex. 284

Syllabus

<p>The 140th section of the act to regulate proceedings in the district court does not, in words, require the petition to state the residence of the opposite party; but, from the fact that the clerk is required to direct the writ to the sheriff of the county where the opposite party is alleged to reside, there is a virtual requirement that the residence should be alleged. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1495, Note 587.)</p> <p>A petition for a writ of error, which merely gives the names of the parties and the year when the judgment was rendered, is insufficient.</p> <p>The 1st section of the act of 14th February, 1860, amending the several acts regulating proceedings in the district court, reads as follows: “No writ of error, to remove a cause from the district to the supreme court, shall in any case issue unless the plaintiff in error give bond, with sufficient security, for all the costs which may accrue in the supreme court, and which may have accrued in the district court.” (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1517, Note 599.) Where the bond was every other way in form, except it read, “ at the --term, 1866,” &c., the court said: “As there is no bond, jurisdiction does not attach, and the cause is stricken from the docket.</p>