History
  • No items yet
midpage
Peters v. Crittenden
8 Tex. 131
Tex.
1852
Check Treatment
Hemphill, Ch. J.

The plaintiffs in error assign eight grounds for the reversal of the judgment, no one of which appears to be well taken.

There may, perhaps, be some irregularity in not taking an interlocutory judgment by default against Vandyke, who did not appear, but the stature provides only that this may be done, and not positively that it shall be entered. The statute also declares that but one final judgment shall be given in the suit. (Art. 706, Dig.) When this is done, the rendition of tlie prior interlocutory judgment becomes immaterial. If it be error, it is one of which the plaintiffs-in error cannot complain, as it saves them from costs which would otherwise have been increased.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Peters v. Crittenden
Court Name: Texas Supreme Court
Date Published: Jul 1, 1852
Citation: 8 Tex. 131
Court Abbreviation: Tex.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.