
    Little v. Hauler.
    The citation must contain, a statement of the names of the parties to the suit.
    Where there are several defendants, a citation requiring the sheriff to summon one to appear and answer the plaintiff's petition “exhibited against him, a copy of which accompanies this writ,” is bad.
    Where there are several defendants, the proper practice is to issue a citation for each defendant, requiring the proper sheriff to summon him to answer the petition of the plaintiff or plaintiffs (by name) exhibited against himself and against his co-defendants, naming them. It would not be error, however, if each citation required the sheriff to summon all of the defendants. (Note 21.)
    Error from lied River. Suit by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error and one Ragsdale. The defendants resided in different counties. A citation was issued to each defendant, directing the sheriff of the respective county to summon him (not both) to appear and answer the petition of Mar-ler, exhibited against both, a copy of which accompanied the citation. Judgment went by default. The error assigned was that the citation was defective, inasmuch as it directed the sheriff to summon only one of the defendants.
    
      A. Morrill, for plaintiff in error, argued that the citation should require the sheriff to summon both defendants, (Hart, Dig., art. 674,) and that a copy of the citation so framed should be served on each of the defendants. (Hart. Dig., 679.)
    
      Young and Morgan, for defendant in error.
   Lipscomb, J.

The only point presented in this case is as to the sufficiency of the writ or citation.

The plaintiff in error, by his counsel, contends that the citation should have directed the sheriff to have summoned both defendants byname, although only one of them resided in his county. And he contends that such is the construction of the articles 674, 675, and 679, Hartley’s Digest. In this construction we cannot coucur. The intent of the statute was to give notice to eaph defendant that a suit had been instituted against him and to call on him to answer to that suit, and that the suit should be sufficiently described to enable him to know it without being left in any uncertainty, if it was against him alone, it would he sufficient to give the name of tile plaintiff who had commenced the suit. If against others sued with him, the citation should give the names of such other defendants so sued as has been done in this ease.

Iu the case of Burleson v. Henderson, Gov.,'decided at Austin, the suit had been brought against three persons, one of whom was Burleson. The citation called upon him to appear and answer to a suit brought against him by Henderson, without any reference to the co-defendants 'included in the petition; the fair conclusion from which was that the suit was instituted against him only. Row, there was no such suit to be found. On this ground we thought the citation insufficient. There were other points in that case not affecting the case under consideration.

Note 21. — The correct practice is to issue one citation for all the defendants. (Anderson v. Brown, 16 T., 551.) In Thormond v. Trammell, 28 T., 868, it is said that it is the duty of th* clerk to issue copies of the citation to each of the defendants.

With us the petition is the commencement of the suit. That

should set forth the names of the parties, plaintiff and defendant, and the citation is to answer to the petition. It is not like the practice in the course of the ■common law, where the original writ is the commencement of the suit and each copy served on the different defendants is but a counterpart of the original. If the citation had been framed as the plaintiff in error contends that it ought to have been, we believe that it would answer the intent of the statute and •would have been sufficient. But we believe that it is more critically correct as framed in the one presented in this case.

Judgment affirmed.  