Miller v. Lovell
| Decision Date | 28 April 1897 |
| Citation | 40 S.W. 835 |
| Parties | MILLER v. LOVELL.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Victoria county; S. F. Grimes, Judge.
Action by Charles P. Lovell against Crenshaw Miller. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
A. B. & W. M. Peticolas, for appellant. Glass, Callender & Carsner, for appellee.
This suit was instituted by the appellee against appellant by attachment in the district court of Victoria county upon the judgment described in our conclusions of fact. The appellant pleaded that the judgment sued on was void for the reason that he was never served with process, nor appeared in the suit in which it was rendered; that he was non compos mentis when the judgment was obtained; that the judgment was obtained by fraud; and, in reconvention, for damages for wrongfully suing out an injunction in the case, and in dissolving the partnership existing between him and appellee when the suit was instituted. Exceptions were sustained to the part of the answer setting up fraud and to the plea in reconvention. The case was tried without a jury, and judgment rendered for the appellee.
Conclusions of Fact.
On October 29, 1894, the appellee, Charles P. Lovell, recovered a judgment in the circuit court of the Seventh judicial circuit of the state of Florida sitting in chancery in Lake county, of said state, against the appellant, Crenshaw Miller, for the sum of $1,602.34, with lawful interest thereon from date of judgment. Prior to the rendition of the judgment, the appellant was duly cited and served with a copy of complainant's bill, upon which the judgment was obtained, and, by counsel, appeared in the suit. During the pendency of the suit, and when the judgment was rendered, appellant was of sound mind. Said judgment is valid and subsisting, and no part of it has been paid.
Conclusions of Law.
1. The exceptions were properly sustained to appellant's answer, there being no allegations of specific acts of fraud in the obtention of the judgment sued on.
2. The judgment, being that of a sister state, is entitled to full faith and credit, and, nothing appearing that would affect its validity in the state where rendered, appellant could not predicate an action for damages upon its rendition, as he sought to do in his plea in reconvention. The judgment is affirmed.
1. Writ of error denied by supreme court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dyer v. Johnson
...Civ. App.) 47 S. W. 406. As the only Texas case which is opposed to those cited, plaintiff refers us to the case of Miller v. Lovell ([Tex.] Civ. App.) 40 S. W. 835. That was a suit brought in this state upon a judgment rendered by a court of Florida. The court, in affirming the judgment of......
-
Babcock v. Marshall
...(Tex. Civ. App.) 47 S. W. 406. As the only Texas case which is opposed to those cited, plaintiff refers us to the case of Miller v. Lovell (Civ. App.) 40 S. W. 835. That was a suit in this state upon a judgment rendered by a court of Florida. The court, in affirming the judgment of the tria......