Jordan v. Moore, Case No. 2158
| Decision Date | 26 January 1886 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2158 |
| Citation | 65 Tex. 363 |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Parties | DAVID JORDAN v. H. W. MOORE. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Houston. Tried below before the Hon. J. P. Stevenson, special judge.
This suit was brought by H. W. Moore against David Jordan and Tamer Jordan, in justice's court, Houston county, to recover a balance due Moore, for advances made by him to the Jordans during the year 1882, and to foreclose a mortgage on certain personal property, given as security for the debt. Moore sued out a writ of sequestration, and levied on a portion of the property described in the mortgage. On July 12, 1884, David Jordan replevied the property seized under the writ of sequestration. On July 24, 1884, judgment was rendered, in justice's court, in favor of H. W. Moore against the Jordans, and W. J. Murchison and T. B. Perry, sureties in the replevy bond, for $40.25 and costs. From this judgment David Jordan appealed to the county court.
In the county court Moore filed a motion to quash the appeal bond and dismiss the suit, because the bond misdescribed the judgment rendered in the justice's court, and because it was not conditioned as required by law, which motion the court sustained, and dismissed the cause. Afterwards, David Jordan filed a motion in the county court to transfer the cause to the district court of Houston county, because of the disqualification of the county judge, but the court refused the motion. David Jordan then obtained from the judge of the twenty-sixth judicial district a writ of mandamus compelling the transfer, and also a writ of injunction restraining Moore from availing himself of the judgment of dismissal in the county court, until the further order of the district court.
In the district court Moore demurred to the petition for mandamus, but his demurrer was overruled. He also urged his motion to quash the appeal bond and dismiss the suit. The court sustained the motion, dissolved the injunction, and dismissed the cause. The petition for mandamus alleged that the wife of H. W. Moore and the wife of the county judge, who tried the cause, were sisters. It also showed that the subject-matter of the suit was a part of the community estate of Moore and his wife.
The appeal bond quashed by the court, on motion of the plaintiff. is as follows:
+-----------------------+
¦H. W. MOORE ¦)¦ ¦
+-------------+-+-------¦
¦v. ¦)¦No. 91.¦
+-------------+-+-------¦
¦DAVID JORDAN ¦)¦ ¦
+-----------------------+
Whereas, in justice's court, precinct No. 4, Houston county, Texas, on July 24, 1884, on a writ of sequestration in favor of H. W. Moore, plaintiff, against David Jordan and Tamer Jordan, defendants, which writ had been levied on seven head of stock cattle, in favor of H. W. Moore against David Jordan and Tamer Jordan, to foreclose a mortgage lien on the cattle and in that suit, a judgment was rendered against the defendants and in favor of the plaintiff, for the sum of $35.00, interest and costs--from which judgment defendants appealed to the county court. Now, therefore, we, David Jordan, as principal, and W. J. Murchison and T. B. Perry, as sureties, acknowledge ourselves bound to pay H. W. Moore the sum of $100, conditioned that David Jordan will prosecute his appeal to effect in the county court, and will pay off and satisfy the judgment that may be rendered against him, and will pay off and satisfy all costs that have accrued in the court below, together with all costs in the county court. Then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect.
The judgment of the justice's court, from which David Jordan appealed, was:
Nunn & Denny, for appellants, on the sufficiency of the appeal bond, cited: Hodde v. Susan, 63 Tex. 307;Christian v. Crawford, 60 Tex. 45; Knight v. Old and Ragland, Tex. Law Rev., vol. 3, p. 7; Herndon v. Bremond, 17 Tex. 434;Trannuell v. Trannuell et al., 15 Tex. 291;Hollis and Wife v. Border, 10 Tex. 277.
On the disqualification of the county judge, they cited:...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fry v. Tucker
...be affected by the judgment, although her name was not mentioned in the pleadings. Schultze v. McLeary, 73 Tex. 92, 11 S.W. 924; Jordan v. Moore, 65 Tex. 363; Seabrook v. First Nat. Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 171 S.W. 247; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Looney, 42 Tex.Civ.App. 234, 95 S.W. 691; 25 Tex......
-
Taylor v. Catalon
...Cent. Ry. Co. v. Burnett, 61 Tex. 638; San Antonio St. R. Co. v. Helm, 64 Tex. 147; Gallagher v. Bowie, 66 Tex. 265, 17 S.W. 407; Jordan v. Moore, 65 Tex. 363; Dixie Motor Coach Corp. v. Watson, Tex.Civ. App., 138 S.W.2d 314; Roberts v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., Tex.Civ.App. 142 S.W. 2d 315; ......
-
International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Anderson County
...of Orynski was in legal effect an active party defendant to the suit and directly affected by the judgment. To the same effect is Jordan v. Moore, 65 Tex. 363. The court in Simpson v. Brotherton, 62 Tex. 170, clearly explains the legal reason for the holding, as in these two cases above, th......
-
Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n v. Williams
...W. 493; Hodde v. Susan, 58 Tex. 389; Simpson v. Brotherton, 62 Tex. 170; H. & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Terrell, 69 Tex. 650, 7 S. W. 670; Jordon v. Moore, 65 Tex. 363; Schultze v. McLeary, 73 Tex. 92, 11 S. W. 924; G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Looney, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 234, 95 S. W. 691; and First Nat......