
    Violand & McCarthy v. A. P. Saxel.
    Where the process was returnable on a' day after the date of the writ, it was not in accordance with the statute, and the judgment by default was reversed. (Paschal's Dig., Art. 1431.)
    Error from Bexar. The ease was tried before Hon. Thomas J. Pevihe, one of the district judges.
    The petition of A.P. Saxel against E. S.Violand and Justin McCarthy was filed on the 16th day of October, I860,' and the citations to the defendants, issued on the same day, summoning them to appear and answer at the term of the court to be holden “ on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1860.”
    The judgment was rendered by default on the 15th of March, 1861. The defendants prosecuted error, and assigned the insufficiency of service. It will be observed that the court reversed, but did not define the effect (in the district court) of appearing to prosecute error.
    
      I P. Simpson, for plaintiffs in error.
    Ho brief for defendant in error has been furnished to the Reporter.
   Morrill, C. J.

—The petition was filed 16th October, 1860, citation issued 16th October, 1860, directing the sheriff to summon the defendants to appear on the [first] Monday of March, 1860; judgment by default 15th March, 1861.

The statute (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1431) requires the writ to state the time and place of holding the court.

As the month of March has more than one Monday, the requirements of the statute are not complied with unless the particular Monday is stated. [The writ was returnable on “the first Monday in March, A., P. 1860.” — Reporter. Moreover, had the numerical Monday been stated, the writ was bad by requiring the defendants to appear at a time that had elapsed before the writ was issued. Judgment reversed and cause

Demanded.  