Peters v. Crittenden
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Mann v. Mitchell (Tex. App. 1922)
- Beham v. Ghio (Tex. App. 1889)
- Commercial Corp. v. Krueger (Or. 1927)
- Business Men's Mutual v. Lockhart (Tex. App. 1927)
- Smith v. Candle Creek Dredging Co. (United States District Court for the District of Alaska 1924)
- Herold v. Coates (Neb. 1911)
- Caldwell v. Brown (Tex. 1875)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
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-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.