Gordon v. Zoes
| Decision Date | 23 February 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 10721.,10721. |
| Citation | 125 S.W.2d 1049 |
| Parties | GORDON v. ZOES et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; Roy F. Campbell, Judge.
Suit by L. U. Gordon against J. A. Zoes and another, to enjoin defendants from enforcing a judgment rendered by the County Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County. From a judgment denying a permanent injunction but providing for a temporary injunction pending appeal, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Gammage, Gammage & Bauer, of Houston (Earl W. Gammage and Charles D. Bauer, both of Houston, of counsel), for appellant.
Jas. A. Williams, of Houston, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the 80th District Court of Harris County denying an application by appellant to enjoin appellees, J. A. Zoes and the County Clerk of Harris County, from enforcing a judgment rendered by the County Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County.
In a trial before the court judgment was rendered denying a permanent injunction but providing for a temporary injunction pending appeal upon the filing by appellant of a supersedeas bond, which bond was duly filed. No findings of fact were requested of the trial court, and none were made.
The record discloses that on October 8, 1936, judgment was rendered in the justice court of Harris County in favor of appellee, J. A. Zoes, and against appellant Gordon and the sureties on a replevin bond in the sum of $100. On an appeal from this judgment to the county court at law No. 2 of Harris County, the judgment of the justice court was affirmed as to appellant Gordon, but the sureties on said replevin bond were discharged.
The judgment sought to be enjoined is regular on its face. It recites the appearance of all parties, the hearing of the pleadings, the evidence, and the arguments of counsel, and the rendition of judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
It is the contention of appellant that said judgment is void for the reason that the pleadings in the original suit in the justice court were so changed and amended on appeal to the county court at law No. 2 as to create a new and independent cause of action not pleaded in the lower court.
The record does not sustain this contention. While plaintiff filed certain written pleadings in the justice court, he expressly reserved the right in said pleadings to plead orally on the trial of the case. It is uniformly held in this State that in cases...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henry v. Smith
...see also Mo. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Union Bus Lines, Inc., 210 S.W.2d 846, 848 (Tex. App.-Eastland 1948, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Gordon v. Zoes, 125 S.W.2d 1049, 1049-50 (Tex. App.-Galveston 1939, no C. Analysis The starting point for our analysis of the trial court's denial of the permanent injun......
-
Henry v. Smith
...see also Mo. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Union Bus Lines, Inc. , 210 S.W.2d 846, 848 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1948, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ; Gordon v. Zoes , 125 S.W.2d 1049, 1049–50 (Tex. App.—Galveston 1939, no writ).C. AnalysisThe starting point for our analysis of the trial court's denial of the permane......
-
Jamie Genender & Critter Stuff, LLC v. USA Store Fixtures, LLC
...the law recognizes a presumption that Store Fixtures orally pleaded its breach of contract claim in justice court. See Gordon v. Zoes, 125 S.W.2d 1049, 1049–50 (Tex.Civ.App.—Galveston 1939, no writ) (holding that the county court's judgment was not void based on an allegation that the plain......
-
Great Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Harrell, 2371.
...of any showing to the contrary, we must presume that the judgment of such court had proper support in the pleadings. Gordon v. Zoes, Tex.Civ.App., 125 S.W.2d 1049. While there was no direct testimony negativing the existence of some of the exceptions enumerated in the policy, there was evid......