Huggins v. Johnston, 5118.
Decision Date | 21 January 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 5118.,5118. |
Citation | 35 S.W.2d 688 |
Parties | HUGGINS v. JOHNSTON. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Davis, Jester & Tarver, of Corsicana, for plaintiff in error.
Taylor & Howell, of Corsicana, for defendant in error.
This suit was originally instituted in the district court of Navarro county, Tex., by R. B. Johnston, defendant in error, against W. M. Huggins, plaintiff in error.
The Court of Civil Appeals makes a very clear statement of the facts and issues of the case, and we refer to the opinion of that court for a full statement. 3 S.W.(2d) 937, 938. However, in order that this opinion may be complete within itself, we will briefly again state the issues in the case.
The suit was filed by R. B. Johnston against W. M. Huggins for an injunction to restrain Huggins from issuing, or causing to be issued, recording, or causing to be recorded, in Liberty or Chambers county, Tex., or elsewhere, an abstract of judgment on a certain judgment rendered in the district court of Navarro county, Tex., entitled "Schloss Bros. vs. W. M. Huggins and R. B. Johnston," and from issuing, or causing to be issued, any writ of garnishment or other process for the enforcement of said judgment as against Johnston or the Humble Oil & Refining Company, which is also made a party defendant by this suit.
The trial court filed conclusions of law and fact, and his findings of fact are fully supported by the record, and are set out in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. We here reproduce such findings:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hayward v. City of Corpus Christi
...suit was instituted. 34 Am.Jur. 59, Sec. 65; Nelson v. San Antonio Traction Co., 107 Tex. 180, 175 S.W. 434, pt. 3-4; Huggins v. Johnston, 120 Tex. 21, 35 S.W.2d 688, pt. Furthermore, even though the city had made such payments under a mutual mistake of fact and even though the right to rec......
-
Patterson v. Fuller
...points (Tex. Com.App.) 45 S.W.2d 152; Maresh v. Jennings (Tex.Civ.App.) 38 S.W.2d 406 (error ref.); Fox v. Kroeger, supra; Huggins v. Johnston, 120 Tex. 21, 35 S. W.2d 688; Lewis v. Easley (Tex.Civ. App.) 34 S.W.2d 376; Perry's Adm'r v. Smith, 34 Tex. 277; Twichell v. Askew (Tex.Civ.App.) 1......
-
Remley v. Kleypas, Civ. A. No. B-84-93-CA.
...It is undisputed that a judgment which has been discharged by payment will not authorize the issuance of execution. Huggins v. Johnston, 120 Tex. 21, 35 S.W.2d 688 (1931). However, early Texas case law indicates that satisfaction of judgment as a grounds for enjoining issuance of execution,......
-
Russell v. Sarkeys
...382; O'Connor v. Koch, Tex.Civ.App.1895, 29 S.W. 400. The limitation applies to equitable as well as legal actions. Huggins v. Johnston, Tex.Civ.App.1928, 3 S.W.2d 937 affirmed 120 Tex. 21, 35 S.W.2d 688. While this includes actions asserting subrogation, Downing v. Jeffrey, Tex.Civ. App.19......