Jordan v. Corley
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | REEVES |
| Citation | 42 Tex. 284 |
| Decision Date | 01 January 1874 |
| Parties | JAMES M. JORDAN v. JAMES A. CORLEY. |
42 Tex. 284
JAMES M. JORDAN
v.
JAMES A. CORLEY.
Supreme Court of Texas.
1874.
[42 Tex. 285]
APPEAL from Houston. Tried below before the Hon. L. W. Cooper.
Carleton, Robertson, and G. W. Wynn, for appellant
E. Cline, for appellee.
In 1870, Corley sued out an attachment against one Jones from a justice's court, and obtained the same day a writ of garnishment against Jordan. Jones failing to appear, a judgment by default was rendered against him for $52.27, and recited that Jordan having answered that he had five bales of Jones's cotton in his possession, “it is ordered that plaintiff recover the amount of his judgment and costs of Jordan, out of the proceeds of the cotton.”
Nearly two years after, appellant brought this suit to enjoin the collection of the judgment against him as garnishee, alleging that at the time he answered the garnishment, Jones was indebted to him on the previous year's account, and sought to set aside the judgment by contradicting its recitals without alleging any fraud or equity against its collection; also alleged that the execution stayed by the injunction was issued more than twelve months after the judgment.
His excuse for not filing his petition within twelve months was, that he did not know the judgment was rendered against him until about five days before he filed his petition.
The court below dissolved the injunction, and Jordan appealed.
REEVES, J.James M. Jordan, the plaintiff in the court below, appeals from the judgment dissolving the injunction and dismissing his suit.
It appears from the statements of the plaintiff, as set out in his original petition for injunction, that James A. Corley, the defendant in this suit, on the 4th day of February, 1870, sued out an attachment from a justice's court against one Buck
[42 Tex. 286]
Jones, and on the same day obtained a writ of garnishment against the plaintiff, Jordan.
Jones, the defendant in the justice's court, failing to appear, a judgment by default was rendered against him, on the 5th day of March, 1870, for the amount of the plaintiff's demand, being $52.27, for which sum, with costs, execution was ordered to issue. The judgment recites that Jordan having answered that he had five bales of cotton in his possession, it was ordered that the plaintiff, Corley, recover the amount of his judgment from said Jordan, and all costs, out of the proceeds of the five bales of cotton. The present suit was brought by Jordan to enjoin the defendant, Corley, from collecting the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spivey v. Saner-Ragley Lumber Co., (No. 777-4074.)
...cognizant of all subsequent proceedings in the cause. Thompson v. Alford, 20 Tex. 491; Hopkins v. Donaho, 4 Tex. 336; Jordan v. Corley, 42 Tex. 284; Bryan v. Lund, 25 Tex. 98; Kirby v. Estill, 75 Tex. 486, 12 S. W. 807; Rabb v. Rogers, 67 Tex. 335, 3 S. W. 303; Fleming v. Seeligson, 57 Tex.......
-
Plains Growers, Inc. v. Jordan, No. B--4449
...had been served with process or answered in a case would keep himself informed of subsequent proceedings therein. See Jordan v. Corley, 42 Tex. 284; Peaslee-Gaulbert Corp. v. Hughes, Tex.Civ.App., 79 S.W.2d 149 (wr. ref.); Grand United Order of Odd Fellows v. Wright, Tex.Civ.App., 76 S.W.2d......
-
Crutcher v. Wolfe, (No. 169.)
...by the fraud, accident, or acts of the opposite parties, wholly unaffected by any fault or negligence of their own. Jordan v. Corley, 42 Tex. 284; Crawford v. Wingfield, 25 Tex. 414; Nevins v. McKee, 61 Tex. 412; Contreras v. Haynes, 61 Tex. 104; Morris v. Edwards, 62 Tex. 205; Ames Iron Wo......
-
Nuckols v. Lyle
...Fitzhugh v. Orton, 12 Tex. 4; Musgrove v. Chambers, 12 Tex. 32; Smith v. Ryan, 20 Tex. 661; Manney v. Hunt, 36 Tex. 118; Jordan v. Cooley, 42 Tex. 284; Morgan v. Board of Commrs., 4 Idaho 418, 39 P. 1118; Packard v. Board of Commrs., 2 Colo. 338; Lawrence v. Leidigh, 58 Kan. 676, 50 P. 889;......
-
Spivey v. Saner-Ragley Lumber Co., (No. 777-4074.)
...cognizant of all subsequent proceedings in the cause. Thompson v. Alford, 20 Tex. 491; Hopkins v. Donaho, 4 Tex. 336; Jordan v. Corley, 42 Tex. 284; Bryan v. Lund, 25 Tex. 98; Kirby v. Estill, 75 Tex. 486, 12 S. W. 807; Rabb v. Rogers, 67 Tex. 335, 3 S. W. 303; Fleming v. Seeligson, 57 Tex.......
-
Plains Growers, Inc. v. Jordan, No. B--4449
...had been served with process or answered in a case would keep himself informed of subsequent proceedings therein. See Jordan v. Corley, 42 Tex. 284; Peaslee-Gaulbert Corp. v. Hughes, Tex.Civ.App., 79 S.W.2d 149 (wr. ref.); Grand United Order of Odd Fellows v. Wright, Tex.Civ.App., 76 S.W.2d......
-
Crutcher v. Wolfe, (No. 169.)
...by the fraud, accident, or acts of the opposite parties, wholly unaffected by any fault or negligence of their own. Jordan v. Corley, 42 Tex. 284; Crawford v. Wingfield, 25 Tex. 414; Nevins v. McKee, 61 Tex. 412; Contreras v. Haynes, 61 Tex. 104; Morris v. Edwards, 62 Tex. 205; Ames Iron Wo......
-
Nuckols v. Lyle
...Fitzhugh v. Orton, 12 Tex. 4; Musgrove v. Chambers, 12 Tex. 32; Smith v. Ryan, 20 Tex. 661; Manney v. Hunt, 36 Tex. 118; Jordan v. Cooley, 42 Tex. 284; Morgan v. Board of Commrs., 4 Idaho 418, 39 P. 1118; Packard v. Board of Commrs., 2 Colo. 338; Lawrence v. Leidigh, 58 Kan. 676, 50 P. 889;......