Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62. Page: 426
xxii, 836 p., 22 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
426 GiuBr3s v. LEON & 11. BLUC. [Tyler Term,
Statement of the case.
J. F. GRUBBS V. LEON & H. BLUM.
(Case No. 1604.)
1. APPEAL - JUDGMENT.- The district court has control of its judgment until
the close of the term at which it is rendered, notwithstanding an appeal or
writ of error to the appellate court may have been perfected.
'2. CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT- AMENDMENT.-A creditor took from his debtor
a written authority to sue him in any county in Texas; to designate any
practicing attorney to waive process and confess judgment, and to sue
out attachments or other writs at pleasure, waiving all rights of action for
damages for so doing. Suit was brought against the debtor in a county
distant from that of his residence, and the written authority was attached
to the petition. . Held, that the authority must be strictly construed, and a
judgment entered by confession, on motion of one who assumed to waive
process for the creditor, could only be valid when the acting attorney acted
under a written authority, on file at the date of the confession of the judgment.3. SAME.-Where the judgment is entered without such written authority, it
cannot be afterwards amended and corrected by filing in the cause such
written authority to the acting attorney, contained in a,paper bearing no
date, and with no evidence as to the time of its execution.
ERROR from Bexar. Tried below before the Hon . G . . oonan.
On November 9, 1883, L. & H. Blum brought this suit against
Grubbs and Bower to recover $1,652.30, claimed to be due by account
as based upon a written instrument attached to the petition. It was
alleged that the defendants were resident citizens of Bell county,
and that the suit was brought in Bexar county by virtue of the
written instrument signed by Grubbs, and dated November 5, 1883.
That instrument authorized the Blums to sue in any county in the
state which they might select, and to designate any practicing attorney
to waive process and confess judgment. It also authorized
the Blums to sue out attachments and other writs at pleasure, and
waiving all rights of action and damages for so doing.
On the same day suit was brought, and one S. D. Dibble, claiming
to act under the instrument dated November 5, 1883, appeared and
waived process and confessed judgment. At the same time judgment
was rendered in accordance with the confession against Grubbs,
the suit having been discontinued as to Bower.
On November 21, 1883, Grubbs filed his petition and bond for
writ of error, and on the 24th of the same month L. & HI. Blum
filed a motion to amend and correct the judgment by showing a
written assignment of Dibble to act in the matter. This motion
was granted and the order was made. The instrument appended to
the motion bore no date and was as follows:
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62., book, 1885; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28512/m1/448/: accessed May 6, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .