TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Trimble v. Miller

M. Trimble and wife v. G. W. Miller

Trimble v. Miller, 24 Tex. 214 (1859)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Texas Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1859
Judges
Roberts
Citations
24 Tex. 214
Cited by 19
Headnotes
A petition on a joint note, against a husband and wife, which does not aver that the debt was contracted for the benefit of the wife's separate property, or an7 other fact that would authorize a judgment against her, presents no cause of action against the wife, and a judgment by default, against her, will be reversed.
Summary
Error from Caldwell. Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. This suit was brought by G. W. Miller, against M. Trimble, and his wife, Mary W. Trimble, on a note of $285, signed by the defendants, and one Alfred Johnson, which was set out in the petition, and expressed on its face the consideration for which it was given. The note was, in form, joint and several; the judgment rendered was against the defendants for the amount of the note sued on, with interest, and an award of execution against them. The petition alleged no other fact as the basis of a recovery, than the execution of the note described, its maturity, non-payment, &c.; and showed on its face, that the defendant, Mary W. Trimble, was the wife of M. Trimble, at the making and delivery thereof. The other facts appear from the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Roberts

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Roberts, J.

This is a suit against husband and wife, on a note jointly executed by them, for the hire of a negro. Process was served and judgment by default taken, in the usual form of a general recovery of the principal and interest of the note.

There is no valid cause of action stated in the petition against the wife. (Kavanaugh v. Brown, 1 Texas Rep. 481 .) The petition does not disclose that the debt was contracted for the benefit of the wife’s separate property, or any other fact that would authorize a judgment against her. Judgment reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 19 cases

View all citing references →
1873–1874: 11875–1876: 11887–1888: 11895–1896: 21915–1916: 11919–1920: 11921–1922: 21923–1924: 11927–1928: 11931–1932: 21935–1936: 21937–1938: 21939–1940: 11959–1960: 118732026peak 1895 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Rhodes v. Gibbs39 Tex. 432 (1873)
  2. Poe v. Hall241 S.W. 708 (Tex. App. 1922)
  3. Lee v. Hall Music Co.35 S.W.2d 685 (Tex. 1931)
  4. Harris v. Williams44 Tex. 124 (1875)
  5. Smith v. Pegram80 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. App. 1935)
  6. Graham v. Carmany2 S.W.2d 467 (Tex. App. 1927)

Most recent

  1. Harris v. Wells335 S.W.2d 774 (Tex. App. 1960)
  2. Witherspoon v. G. Heileman Brewing Co.144 S.W.2d 1017 (Tex. App. 1940)
  3. Service Parts Co. v. Bizzell120 S.W.2d 919 (Tex. App. 1938)
  4. Whisenant v. Thompson Bros. Hardware Co.120 S.W.2d 316 (Tex. App. 1938)
  5. Borden v. Arnold94 S.W.2d 216 (Tex. App. 1936)
  6. Smith v. Pegram80 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. App. 1935)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Kavanaugh v. Brown, 1 Tex. 481 (1846) 16

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list