
    HOLLAND v. WOOD et al.
    (No. 721.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
    June 7, 1917.)
    Judgment <&wkey;17(10) — Return oe “Not Found.”
    Where sheriff’s return of “Not found” affirmatively showed a defendant was not served with citation, judgment against such defendant was unauthorized.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Judgment, Cent. Dig. § 31.]
    Error from Palo Pinto County Court; J. T. Ranspot, Judge.
    Action by M. F. Wood against E. R. Holland and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and the named defendant brings error.
    Reversed and rémanded as to the named defendant, and affirmed as to the other defendants.
    Lockett & Rowe, of Ft. Worth, for plaintiff in error. W. P. Smith, of Mineral Wells, for defendants in error.
   HIGGINS, J.

Judgment by default was rendered against E. R. Holland and others in a suit by M. F. Wood. The return of the sheriff upon the citation to Holland is as follows:

“Sheriff’s Return.
“Came to hand on the 14th day of Dec., 1914, at 9 o’clock a. m., and executed in-county, Texas, by delivering to each of the within named defendants, in person, a true copy of this citation (together with the accompanying copy of the plaintiff’s petition) at the following times and places, to wit: After making diligent search for the defendant E. R. Holland, not found in Tarrant county.
“I actually and necessarily traveled ■- miles in service of this citation, in addition to any other mileage I may have traveled in the service of other process in the same case during the same trip. N. C. Mann, Sheriff, Tar-rant County, Texas, by F. B. Claypool, Deputy.”

This return affirmatively shows that Holland was not served with citation, for which reason the judgment against him was unauthorized. No other question is presented.

Reversed and remanded as to Holland; affirmed as to the other defendants.  