Kuykendall v. Coulter, No. 888.

No. 888. | Tex. App. | May 30, 1894

But one question is presented in this case. The note sued on was a joint but not a several obligation; the court rendered a joint and several judgment. Because the judgment is several as well as joint, it is charged that reversible error exists.

Though an obligation may be joint and not several, if a separate suit can be maintained against each obligor, then it is proper to render a several judgment, whether one or all be sued. Black on Judg., sec. 210. Article 1256, Revised Statutes, as construed in Forbes v. Davis,18 Tex. 274, and Wooters v. Smith, 56 Tex. 198" court="Tex." date_filed="1882-02-03" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/wooters-v-smith-4893671?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="4893671">56 Tex. 198 [56 Tex. 198], authorizes a separate suit and a separate judgment against persons jointly though not severally bound. Of course, if it is proper to render a several judgment on such an obligation, therefore, when more than one obligor is sued, it is proper to render a joint and several judgment.

We find no error in the record, and affirm the judgment.

Affirmed.