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: 66
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
66 FIELD & Co. v. FOWLER. [Austin Term,
Statement of the case.
APPEAL from MIcLennan. Tried below before the Hon. B. W.
This was an appeal prosecuted by Geo. W. Jackson, who was one
of the sureties on a claimant's bond executed by Field & Co., to reverse
a judgment rendered against him on the bond by default, on
the 7th day of December, A. D. 1883.
In the spring of 1883, a writ of execution was issued out of the
district court of McLennan county, Texas, in cause No. 3842 on
the docket of said court, in favor of Tilman F. Fowler v. C. P.
Field. By virtue of this writ the sheriff of McLennan county, on
the 25th of April, 1883, levied upon and took into his possession
about three hundred head of sheep as the one-half interest and
property of C. P. Field in the sheep in herd at the ranche and premises
of Field & Co. in McLennan county; the sheep were valued by
the sheriff at $750.
On the 3d day of May, 1883, Field & Co., a partnership composed
of TI. IV. Field, II. C. Anderson and Caroline F. Jovner, filed an
affidavit as claimants of the property, alleging that the property
was not the property of Chas. P., alias Clarence P. Field, as stated
in the levy, but was in fact the property of Field & Co.
On the same date Field & Co. filed their claimant's bond, on
which the appellant Geo. W. Jackson, and one Monroe W. Duncan,
were sureties. On the 18th day of May, A. D. 1883, an appearance
was entered in behalf of both parties. No order was then made by
the court directing the formulation of issues, and no issues were in
On December 7, 1883, D. A. Kelley, one of the attorneys of
the claimants, and who had made an appearance in the cause in
May, 1883, had the name of himself and of his partner, M. D. Herring,
stricken from the docket as attorneys for defendant, and
thereupon a judgment by default was awarded the plaintiff, without
The judgment was against the claimants for the sum of $860,
and for costs.
On the next day, December 8, the appellant filed a motion to set
aside the judgment by default, which stated, amongst other things,
that on the 6th of December the appellant called to see the attorneys
previously employed by Field & Co., in reference to the
defense of the suit, and was informed by them that they would
not defend the case,-their fee not having been paid or secured;
that said attorneys expressed the opinion that the case would
not be tried at that term of court, and that it was probable that
Here’s what’s next.
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. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28512/m1/88/: accessed September 20, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .