
    F. W. Chandler and Others v. James R. Tanner, Adm’r.
    Where judgment has gone by default against two or more joint and several makers of a promissory note, one or more of whom have not been served with process, on error by all of the defendants, the plaintiff may dismiss in this Court as to those not served, and have the judgment reformed and rendered against those served; but damages for delay will not be given against the latter.
    Error from Austin. Tried below before the Hon. Thomas H. DuVal.
    Suit by defendant in error against F. W. Chandler, A. J. Hamilton, and George H. Gray, on their joint and several promissory note. Citation returned served on Chandler and Gray, and “not served” on Hamilton. Judgment by default against all of the defendants. Writ of error by all of the defendants.
    
      E. B. Turner, for plaintiff in error Hamilton.
    The judgment is void as to Hamilton, for want of service of process ; and the reversal as to one will reverse as to all. (Burleson v. Henderson, 4 Tex. R. 49.)
    
      O’ Conner, for defendant in error, suggested delay.
   Roberts, J.

Defendant suggests delay, and asks damages. There is no service of process on one of the joint makers of the note, and judgment by default is taken against all of them. Upon the authority of Saffold and others v. Navarro (15 Tex. R. 76) defendant may now dismiss as to Hamilton, who was not served, and the judgment will be reformed and rendered against those served with process.

Ordered accordingly,  