Johnson v. Templeton

Decision Date26 October 1883
Docket NumberCase No. 1511.
Citation60 Tex. 238
PartiesW. T. JOHNSON ET AL. v. V. H. TEMPLETON, ADM'R.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

ERROR from Franklin. Tried below before the Hon. B. T. Estes.

W. P. McLean, for plaintiff in error.

WEST, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

This court has on more than one occasion laid down with considerable strictness the rules which should govern the action of the district court in cases where a new trial is sought after the expiration of the term.

Where the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction has been once solemnly pronounced, it ought not to be lightly disturbed. It is alike the interest of individual suitors and of the public at large that there should be at some period an end put to litigation.

For these, and many other good reasons, though the power of courts of equity to restrain final judgments and to entertain bills for new trial in such cases is well established, it never has at any time been regarded as a favorite one with chancellors.

Such bills seeking relief from final judgments, solemnly rendered in the due and ordinary course of the administration of justice by courts of competent jurisdiction, are always watched by courts of equity with extreme jealousy, and the grounds upon which interference will be allowed are, confessedly, narrow and restricted.

It will not be sufficient to show that injustice has been done by the judgment sought to be enjoined. It must further distinctly and clearly appear that this result was not caused by any inattention or negligence on the part of the person aggrieved, and he must, among other matters, show a clear case of diligence and of merit to obtain the interference of a court of equity in his behalf at such a stage of the case. High on Inj. (2d ed.), secs. 112, 113; Duncan v. Lyon, 3 Johns. Ch., 356;Brown v. Hurd, 56 Ill., 317.

Relief will not be granted unless the party seeking it can show clearly to the satisfaction of the chancellor that he has a good defense to the action, which he was prevented from making by fraud, accident or the acts of the opposite party, wholly unmixed with any fault or negligence on his part. He must be able to impeach the justice and equity of the verdict and judgment of which he complains, and to manifest clearly to the court that there is good ground to suppose that a different result will be attained by a new trial. Plummer v. Power, 29 Tex., 14, and cases there cited; Burnley v. Rice, 21 Tex., 183.

Testing the case before us by these rules, it will be apparent that the district court did not err in dismissing, in this case, the petition for injunction and new trial.

The injustice of the judgment sought to be enjoined is not made clearly manifest.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
96 cases
  • Burguieres v. Farrell
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • September 6, 1935
    ...in numerous cases that might be cited, such as McCauley v. Northern Texas Traction Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 21 S.W.(2d) 309; Johnson v. Templeton, 60 Tex. 238. We quote further from 25 Tex. Jur. p. 389: "Just as any other judgment, a consent judgment is conclusive as to the matters adjudicated,......
  • Hanks v. Rosser
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • April 22, 1964
    ...was negligent in failing to file an answer. Compare Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, 134 Tex. 388, 133 S.W.2d 124 (1939) to Johnson v. Templeton, 60 Tex. 238 (1883). As we view the case, this was not of controlling importance. Assuming that to be true, Hanks was nevertheless entitled to file......
  • Frost Nat'l Bank v. Fernandez
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • April 16, 2010
    ...would be worse than occasional miscarriages of justice.'") (quoting Pico v. Cokn, 91 Cal. 129, 25 P. 970, 971 (1891)); Johnson v. Templeton, 60 Tex. 238, 238 (1883) ("Where the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction has been once solemnly pronounced, it ought not to be lightly ......
  • McFarland v. Reynolds
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 30, 1974
    ...filed the bill of review, there remained no adequate remedy still available. (other remedies were available but not sought). Johnson v. Templeton, 60 Tex. 238 (1883); Nevins v. McKee, 61 Tex. 412 (1884); Alexander v. Hagedorn, 148 Tex. 565, 226 S.W.2d 996 (1950); 4 McDonald, Tex.Civil Pract......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT