Skip to main content
· 7/1/1876

Simmons v. Fisher

Citations

  • 46 Tex. 126

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice in Supreme Court—Motion.—A motion, with reference to a suit pending in the Supreme Court, should, when filed at the instance of an attorney for the party in whose behalf it is made, be signed by him. Mo uniform rule having been established on this subject by the court, a motion not signed is considered, which contains in the body of the motion the name of the counsel and indicates the parties for whom he appears.</p> <p>2. Writ of error—Limitation— Married women.—A motion was made to dismiss a writ of error because the same was sued out more than two years after the date of the judgment. The petition in error alleged that one of the plain tills in error, who was a married woman, had continued a feme covert until the suing out of the writ, and that her co-defendant in the court below died before the date of the judgment, leaving two minor children, who remained minors until married, in less than two years before suing out the writ, which statements were not contested: Meld, 1, That, even had it been shown that those who were alleged to have been minors were not such, the petition in error could be maintained by the feme covert and her husband; the statute of limitation did not run against her during marriage; 2, that one of two or more defendants in a judgment may sue out a writ of error.</p> <p>3. Writ of error may be sued out by heirs.—Though there is no statute qxpressly authorizing the widow and heirs, or an administrator of the estate of a party to a judgment, who dies, to sue out a writ of error, the right exists as resulting from the right of appeal, which is secured by law. In the absence of a statute prescribing an apprqpriate mode of obtaining a review of proceedings on appeal, it is competent for the court to supply the deficiency by adopting proper rules upon the subject.</p> <p>' 4. Practice in Supreme Court—Jurisdiction.—When facts are stated in a petition in error which are contested by answer of the opposite parly, the Supreme Court has

Judges: Roberts

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.