Alexander v. Holt
| Citation | 59 Tex. 205 |
| Decision Date | 01 January 1883 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 940. |
| Parties | J. M. ALEXANDER v. ALEX. HOLT. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Walker. Tried below before the Hon. W. D. Wood.
Suit by appellee filed in the district court of Walker county, August 24, 1877, to enjoin the sale of cotton and corn and fodder levied on by a special constable by virtue of an execution issued out of a justice court in that county on a judgment rendered January 6, 1877, in favor of appellant and against appellee, for $35.27, besides interest. A writ of injunction was granted by the district judge. Appellant excepted to the petition because the court had no jurisdiction, and for want of equity, etc. The court overruled the exceptions and rendered judgment perpetuating the injunction.
J. R. Burnett, for appellant.
L. A. Abercrombie, for appellee, cited art. V, sec. 16, and art. V, sec. 8 of the Constitution; Dearborn v. Philips, 21 Tex., 450.
The principal question in this case was decided a few days since in The County of Anderson v. Kennedy, and upon the authority of that decision we must necessarily sustain the action of the district judge in granting the temporary injunction, and in perpetuating it upon final hearing.
The grounds upon which the injunction was asked were the exemption of the property seized from execution, and the want of authority in Cole (who assumed to be acting as special constable) to make the levy.
It is unnecessary to consider the last ground, as, in our opinion, the property levied upon was not subject to execution for the debts of the appellee. So far as the corn and fodder were concerned, they were exempt under the law in force at the time, as provisions and forage on hand for home consumption, it having been alleged and proved that they were not more than sufficient to reasonably support appellee's family and supply his stock for one year. Pasch. Dig., art. 6834.
We are of opinion, also, that the crops of corn and cotton growing on the homestead were also exempt, as necessary to its beneficial enjoyment.
Chief Justice Hemphill, in Cobbs v. Coleman, 14 Tex., 598, said that it was “very clear that by these reservations the legislature intended a real substantial benefit… That by fair construction the grants in the statute must include not only the subject itself, but everything absolutely essential to its beneficial enjoyment.” The same doctrine is also deducible from Anderson v. McKay, 30 Tex., 186.
The beneficial enjoyment of a rural...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Dallas v. Wright
...a court of chancery would have power to issue them under established rules of equity. Anderson County v. Kennedy, 58 Tex. 616; Alexander v. Holt, 59 Tex. 205; Day Co. v. Chambers, 62 Tex. 190; Stein v. Frieberg, 64 Tex. 271. It is elementary that the statute (article 1219) prescribing a sta......
-
Olmsted-Stevenson Co. v. Miller
... ... This ... decision, however, is clearly in conflict with the repeated ... decisions of the highest court of that state. Alexander ... v. Holt, 59 Tex. 205; Parker v. Hale (Tex. Civ ... App.) 78 S.W. 555; Staggs v. Piland, 31 ... Tex.Civ.App. 245, 71 S.W. 762; Moore v ... ...
-
First Nat. Bank v. Cooper
...348. Ungathered crops on a homestead, being a part of the realty, are also within the exemption, and a levy upon them is void. Alexander v. Holt, 59 Tex. 205; Allen v. Ashburn, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 239, 65 S. W. 45; Stagg's Heirs v. Piland, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 245, 71 S. W. 762; Stephens v. Cox ......
-
Mann v. Brown
...powers conferred upon chancery courts in such cases without regard to amount;' and these views were followed by the court in Alexander v. Holt, 59 Tex. 205, and Day v. Chambers, 62 Tex. 191. But none of these were cases where the jurisdiction of inferior tribunals or the validity of their j......