Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank v. Ray, 9509.
Decision Date | 02 May 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 9509.,9509. |
Citation | 71 S.W.2d 589 |
Parties | DALLAS JOINT STOCK LAND BANK et al. v. RAY et ux. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Goliad County; J. P. Pool, Judge.
Suit by J. W. Ray and wife against the Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank and another. From an order granting a temporary injunction, defendants appeal.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Renfro & McCombs, of Dallas, and W. K. Hopkins, of Gonzales, for appellants.
L. J. Freeman, of Beeville, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a temporary injunction issued by the judge of the district court of Goliad county, Tex., Twenty-fourth judicial district, after a hearing had, restraining C. M. Harbison, as sheriff of Goliad county and the Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank, as plaintiffs in a cause styled Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank of Dallas v. J. W. Ray, Ollie Ouida Ray, Texas Company, and C. M. Frost, and being cause No. 5499—B on the docket of the district court, Dallas county, Forty-fourth judicial district, from executing a certain order of sale issued by the clerk of the district court of Dallas county in the above-styled and numbered cause ordering the sheriff of Goliad county to sell 1,091.2 acres of land located in Goliad county, and fully described in the order of sale.
Appellees, J. W. Ray and wife, presented their petition for this injunction to the judge of the district court of Goliad county, on the 5th day of March, 1934, and a temporary restraining order was granted by the following fiat which was indorsed on the petition:
Upon the date set for the hearing, the judge of the district court of Goliad county heard the cause upon its merits and granted a stay of execution for sixty days under the provisions of S. B. No. 3 (c. 16), passed by the Last Called Session of the 43d Legislature of this state (Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. art. 3804 note).
We are thus confronted with the proposition of whether or not the district judge of Goliad county (Twenty-fourth judicial district) had jurisdiction to set this cause down for a hearing and upon a hearing enjoin the execution of an order of sale issued out of the district court of Dallas county (Forty-fourth judicial district), or would he be required, under the provisions of article 4656, R. S. 1925, to make such writ returnable to the Dallas court for a hearing?
Article 4656 provides in part as follows:
"Writs of injunction granted to stay proceedings in a suit, or execution on a judgment, shall be returnable to and tried in the court where such suit is pending, or such judgment was rendered."
It is clear that a hearing on this petition should not have been had before the judge of the Twenty-fourth judicial district, but the temporary injunction should have been made returnable to the Dallas court and any hearing or trial there had.
In 24 Tex. Jur., p. 163, § 119, we find the following:
In Gohlman, Lester & Co. v. Whittle, 115 Tex. 9, 273 S. W. 806, 807, Justice Greenwood, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court, quoted with approval the following, found in Adoue v. Wettermark, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 545, 55 S. W. 511, 514:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Waltrip v. State, 1909.
...v. Northcut, 94 Tex. 86, 58 S.W. 720; Cisco Independent School Dist. v. Dudley, Tex.Civ.App., 53 S. W.2d 639; Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank v. Ray, Tex.Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d 589; Spratling v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 68 S.W. 2d 278; Oliver v. Freeland, Tex.Civ.App., 74 S.W.2d 711; Logan v. First N......