TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Holliday v. Steele

A. A. & W. H. Holliday v. A. G. Steele

Holliday v. Steele, 65 Tex. 388 (1886)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Texas Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 29, 1886
Docket
No. 2192
Judges
Robertson
Citations
65 Tex. 3881886 Tex. LEXIS 674
Syllabus
1. Citation—Sheriff’s return—Defective service—The return upon the citation was as follows : “ Came to hand on the 12th day of February, A. D. 1884, at 11 o’clock a. m., and executed the 18th day of February, A. D. 1884, by delivering to Mrs. A. A. Holliday and W. H. Holliday, the within named defendants, in person, a true copy of this writ.” Held: (1) The service was insufficient; (2) The fact that in the statement of the sheriff’s costs, at the end of the transcript, fees for delivering two citations are charged, does not cure the defect in the return. 2. Case followed—The case of King v. Goodson (42 Tex. 153), cited and followed.
Summary
Error from Brazos. Tried below before the Hon. W. E. Collard.

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

Opinion of the Court — Robertson

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

Robertson, Associate Justice.

defendant in error recovered a judgment by default against the plaintiffs in error. The return upon the citation is in the following words: “Came to hand on the twelfth day of February, A. D. 1884, at 11 o’clock a. m., and executed the eighteenth day of February, A. D. 1884, by delivering to *389 Mrs. A. A. Holliday and W. H. Holliday, the within named defendants, in person, a true copy of this writ.” This language is almost identical with that of the return held to be insufficient in the case of King v. Goodson, 42 Tex. 153 , and, on that authority, the service must be held to be bad. In the statement of the sheriff’s costs, at the end of the transcript, fees for delivering two citations are charged, but we do not think this cures the defect in the return. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and Remanded.

[Opinion delivered January 29, 1886.]

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1888: 11891: 11906: 11908: 11911: 11913: 11916: 11921: 11924: 11925: 11926: 11927: 11929: 118882026peak 1888 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Duke v. Spiller111 S.W. 787 (Tex. App. 1908)
  2. McMillon v. Harrison63 So. 427 (Fla. 1913)
  3. Scruggs v. Gribble17 S.W.2d 153 (Tex. App. 1929)
  4. Mosaic Templars of America v. Gaines265 S.W. 721 (Tex. App. 1924)
  5. Fitzpatrick v. Dorris Bros.284 S.W. 303 (Tex. App. 1926)
  6. Scott v. Ray141 S.W. 1002 (Tex. App. 1911)

Most recent

  1. Scruggs v. Gribble17 S.W.2d 153 (Tex. App. 1929)
  2. Lipscomb v. Wood County292 S.W. 522 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1927)
  3. Fitzpatrick v. Dorris Bros.284 S.W. 303 (Tex. App. 1926)
  4. Lipscomb v. Wood County282 S.W. 278 (Tex. App. 1925)
  5. Mosaic Templars of America v. Gaines265 S.W. 721 (Tex. App. 1924)
  6. Finley v. State230 S.W. 420 (Tex. Crim. App. 1921)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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