Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Rawlings

• Decision Date: 24 April 1891
• Citation: Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Rawlings, 16 S.W. 430, 80 Tex. 579 (Tex. 1891)
• Parties: GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. RAWLINGS <I>et al.</I>
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

16 S.W. 430

GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. RAWLINGS et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

April 24, 1891.

Appeal from district court, Milam county.

J. W. Terry, for appellant.

STAYTON, C. J.

Appellant sought injunction to restrain sale of its property under execution issued by Craddock, a justice of peace, on a judgment rendered by him in favor of Lee Rawlings for $15, which had been levied by Cummings, a constable, on its personal property. As ground for injunction, it was alleged that Rawlings brought suit against appellant for $15, without stating for what; that citation issued directing the summons of W. J. Sayre, agent of appellant, but not directing the citation of appellant, which was served on Sayre; that appellant did not appear, answer, or waive service; and that after this Craddock, after he had adjourned his court for the term, entered a judgment in favor of Rawlings for $15, on which execution issued, which was levied on personal property belonging to appellant. The citation was made an exhibit to the petition, and commanded the officer "to summon J. W. Sayre, agent for the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company * * * to be and appear, * * * then and there, to answer unto Lee Rawlings, in suit for damages for the killing of one half-breed calf, killed by the cars of the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company, on or about the 17th day of September, 1887, and said calf being valued at fifteen dollars," etc. The petition alleged that plaintiff had a good defense to the action, in that it alleged that the animal was not killed by plaintiff's cars, "but got into a mud-hole, and died from effects of injuries received while therein." The defendant demurred as follows: First, to the jurisdiction of the court over the subject-matter of the suit, as alleged in plaintiff's petition; second, general demurrer; third, the following special demurrers: First, said petition shows no equity; second, said petition does not state any valid defense to the defendant Lee Rawlings' suit in the justice court; third, said petition does not show that plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for; fourth, said petition shows that the plaintiff is attempting to get the district court to exercise supervisory and appellate jurisdiction over the justice's court. The demurrers were sustained, injunction dissolved, and, plaintiff declining to amend, its suit was dismissed.

The statute requires that citations from justices' courts "shall require the officer to summon ...