Coe v. Nash

10 Citing cases

  1. Smith v. Henger

    148 Tex. 456 (Tex. 1950)   Cited 2 times

    Rule 369-a, as originally adopted in 1941, was based on the provisions of Articles 1760 and 1850, R.C.S. 1925, and applied to the situation where the party died after the perfection of the appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals. These statutes or similar statutes in earlier revisions were construed in Coe v. Nash, 91 Tex. 113, 41 S.W. 473; Conn v. Hagan, 93 Tex. 334, 55 S.W. 323; Ellis v. Brooks, 101 Tex. 591, 102 S.W. 94, 103 S.W. 1196; and Wootton v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 286 S.W. 680, writ dismissed, but none of these cases involved the question now before us. As amended in 1943, Rule 369-a applies if a party dies at any time after judgment is rendered in the trial court.

  2. Smith v. Henger

    148 Tex. 456 (Tex. 1950)

    Rule 369-a, as originally adopted in 1941, was based on the provisions of Articles 1760 and 1850, R.C.S. 1925, and applied to the situation where the party died after the perfection of the appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals. These statutes or similar statutes in earlier revisions were construed in Coe v. Nash, 91 Tex. 113, 41 S.W. 473; Conn v. Hagan, 93 Tex. 334, 55 S.W. 323; Ellis v. Brooks, 101 Tex. 591, 102 S.W. 94, 102 S.W. 1196; and Wootton v. Jones, Tex. Civ. App., 286 S.W. 680, writ dismissed, but none of these cases involved the question now before us. As amended in 1943, Rule 369-a applies if a party dies at any time after judgment is rendered in the trial court.

  3. Bruner v. Nordmeyer

    150 P. 159 (Okla. 1915)   Cited 10 times

    On June 23d, defendant in error filed a motion to make the petition in error more definite and certain by stating the names of the plaintiffs in error on behalf of whom the petition in error was prosecuted, which motion was, on September 12th, sustained, showing that an amendment of such a character is permissible, although the above case was afterwards dismissed for failure to comply with the order of amendment and for other grounds. For the reason that its facts are so similar to the case at bar, and the rule announced is so in accord with our holding here, we set out the following from the Supreme Court of Texas, in Coe et al. v. Nash, 91 Tex. 113, 41 S.W. 473: "Anne E. Prather, one of the defendants in the court below, and one of the appellants in the Court of Civil Appeals, filed a motion in this court to dismiss the writ of error because W. N. Coe, the principal, and she, Anne E. Prather, and others who were sureties upon the first bond of W. N. Coe, were not made parties to this writ.

  4. Moore v. Hanscom

    101 Tex. 293 (Tex. 1908)   Cited 36 times

    The order of discharge in the County Court and the subsequent decree approving annual account of guardian, charging him with moneys reported on hand, fix the liability for the assets on the sureties at date of decree so approving such annual account. Sayles' Rev. Stats., 1897, arts 2684, 2688 (accounts required to show "money on hand"); Coe v. Nash, 91 Tex. 120; Heath v. Layne, 62 Tex. 690; Bouldin v. Miller, 87 Tex. 366 [ 87 Tex. 366]; Sabrinos v. Chamberlain, 76 Tex. 624 [ 76 Tex. 624]; Bopp v. Hansford, 18 Texas Civ. App. 345[ 18 Tex. Civ. App. 345]; Frenkel v. Caddou, 40 S.W. Rep., 638 (Texas); Morris v. Morris, 9 Heiskell, Tenn., 814; Fogarty v. Ream, 100 Ill. 375; Arizona v. Cook, 17 Pac. Rep., 10; Morley v. Town, 78 Ill. 394; Cook v. State, 13 Ind. 154; Sooy v. State, 41 N.J. Law, 394. The misappropriation took place after making of last bond.

  5. Bates v. Crane County

    55 S.W.2d 610 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932)   Cited 8 times

    Murfree, Off. Bonds, § 710." Coe v. Nash, 91 Tex. 113, 41 S.W. 473, 476. "Many authorities have firmly settled the doctrine that the liability of sureties upon official bonds cannot legitimately be extended beyond `the reasonably necessary import of the language' of the bond, or by inference be made to exceed their express undertaking; their liability being strictissimi juris."

  6. Myers v. Colquitt

    173 S.W. 993 (Tex. Civ. App. 1915)   Cited 4 times

    If claims had been allowed by the commissioners' court and the clerk had issued warrants for a larger amount than had been allowed, or to persons as payees different from those to whom such claims had been allowed, unquestionably he would have violated the terms quoted of the bond aforesaid, and it occurs to us that the acts are none the less "official acts" because he issued such warrants without any previous authority of the commissioners' court. In support of this construction of the meaning, force and effect of the terms of this bond, we are cited by appellee to the following cases: Coe v. Nash, 40 S.W. 236; State v. Nevin, 19 Nev. 162, 7 P. 650, 3 Am.St.Rep. 873; Hart v. U.S., 95 U.S. 316, 24 L.Ed. 479; Silver Bow County v. Davies, 40 Mont. 418, 107 P. 81; Jackson County v. Derrick, 117 Ala. 348, 23 So. 193; County of Waseca v. Sheehan, 42 Minn. 57, 43 N.W. 690, 5 L.R.A. 795; Campbell v. People, 154 Ill. 595, 39 N.E. 578; Spindler v. People, 154 Ill. 637, 39 N.E. 580; People v. Treadway, 17 Mich. 481; Mahaska County v. Ruan, 45 Iowa 328; Marlar v. Tishomingo, 62 Miss. 677; Cricket v. State, 18 Ohio St. 9. In practically all of these cases the principle of law is laid down that the government is not bound by the negligence of its officers, nor estopped from asserting its right to recover on official bonds of officers because other officials of the government had been guilty of negligence of malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance, which acts may have contributed to and conduced to cause the loss sustained.

  7. Birkman v. Fahrenthold

    52 Tex. Civ. App. 335 (Tex. Civ. App. 1908)   Cited 3 times

    The above was the use of an admission by Birkman which could properly be used as against him, but it was not evidence as against the sureties. Lacoste v. Bexar County, 28 Tex. 420; Coe v. Nash, 91 Tex. 122. The defendants objected to this evidence of Brown for the reason that it was not admissible as an admission, which objection as made was overruled, and properly so, because it was admissible, at least as to Birkman.

  8. Turner v. National Cotton Oil Co.

    50 Tex. Civ. App. 468 (Tex. Civ. App. 1908)   Cited 9 times

    f Travis County, the Court of Civil Appeals and the Supreme Court, offered in evidence by the defendants, revoking and forfeiting the permit issued to plaintiff. Where the sole condition of a bond sued upon is that the principal therein shall well and truly account for and repay to the obligee such sums of money as the obligee might from time to time advance to the principal, or which the principal might have in his possession belonging to the obligee, the liability of the sureties on such bond can not be extended by implication or intendment to cover an amount alleged to be due from the principal to the obligee, not out of moneys advanced to the principal, or which the principal has in his possession belonging to the obligee, but by the terms of a separate contract between such principal and obligee, such contract not being referred to in the bond, and there being no evidence to show that the sureties on said bond had any notice of said contract. Wood Lea v. Hollander, 84 Tex. 394; Coe v. Nash, 91 Tex. 121; Pingrey on Suretyship and Guaranty, secs. 66, 67; Brant on Suretyship and Guaranty, sec. 106; Burlington Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 12 N.E. 205; John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Loewenberg, 23 N.E. 978. Baker, Botts, Parker Garwood, for appellee.

  9. McKenzie v. Barrett

    43 Tex. Civ. App. 451 (Tex. Civ. App. 1906)   Cited 13 times

    s of the building contract upon which the bond is based as a condition precedent to a recovery thereon, and where one of such provisions is, that the owner shall not pay to the contractor more than 80 percent of the value of the material and labor wrought into the building, a breach of this provision by the owner releases the surety. Ryan v. Morton, 65 Tex. 258; Sanders v. Hambrick, 16 Texas Civ. App. 461[ 16 Tex. Civ. App. 461]; House v. American Surety Co., 54 S.W. Rep., 303; United States v. Freel, 186 U.S. 309, and cases cited; Backus v. Archer, 109 Mich. 668; Evans v. Graden, 125 Mo., 77; Taylor v. Jeter, 23 Mo., 244; Law v. East India Co., 4 Vesey, 824; Mundy v. Stevens, 9 C. C. A., 366, 61 Fed. Rep., 77; Tennant v. Fawcett, 94 Tex. 111; Sanger v. Slayden, 7 Texas Civ. App. 609[ 7 Tex. Civ. App. 609]; Borden v. Houston, 2 Tex. 607 [ 2 Tex. 607]; McClenney v. Floyd, 3 Tex. 116; Smith v. Doak, 3 Tex. 222; Burke v. Cruger, 8 Tex. 70; Wylie v. Hightower, 74 Tex. 306 [ 74 Tex. 306]; Coe v. Nash, 91 Tex. 113; Moroney v. Coombes, 13 Texas Ct. Rep., 527. "A surety is bound by the terms of his contract, and his liability can not be extended beyond it.

  10. Harper v. Marion County

    33 Tex. Civ. App. 653 (Tex. Civ. App. 1903)   Cited 6 times

    It is held that the statement in the report of a county treasurer of the balance on hand at the time of making his report, is not required by the law to be made by him, and is not admissible in evidence against the sureties. Coe v. Nash, 91 Tex. 113. The auditor's report does state that Harper's report to the Commissioners Court "shows that he received from J.C. Hart, tax collector of Marion County, on account of bonds and interest from all told $1682.56."