Moore v. Jordan
| Decision Date | 29 January 1886 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2169 |
| Citation | 65 Tex. 395 |
| Parties | H. W. MOORE v. DAVID JORDAN ET ALS. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Houston. Tried below before the Hon. A. M. Miller, special judge.
The opinion states the case.
Cooper & Moore, for appellant, cited: Watrous v. Rodgers, 16 Tex. 410;DeLeon v. Owen, 3 Tex. 153;Blanton & Nunnally v. Langston & Co., 60 Tex. 150, 151; R. S., 2874; Griswell v. Bledsoe, 22 Tex. 656; Davis v. Miller, 6 Tex. 340; R. S., 2875, 2876; Freeman on Ex., 33.
Nunn & Denny, for appellees, cited: Harle v. Langdon's Heirs, 60 Tex. 564;Williams v. Ponus, 48 Tex. 141.
The appellant obtained a judgment against David Jordan and Tamer Jordan, in justice's court, and against their sureties on a replevin bond given to release property seized under a writ of sequestration. From that judgment David Jordan alone appealed. The appeal was dismissed in the district court, to which the cause had been transferred on account of the disqualification of the county judge, on the ground that the appeal bond was insufficient. From that judgment David Jordan and the sureties on the replevin bond perfected an appeal to this court, which was decided at the present term, and the judgment of the district court, dismissing the appeal, was reversed, and the cause remanded for a trial.
After the appeal was dismissed in the district court, and after an appeal from that judgment to this court had been perfected, the appellant Moore caused an execution to issue against Tamer Jordan, and the sureties on the replevin bond. An injunction was sued out by David Jordan and the sureties on the replevin bond, to restrain the execution of that process, pending the appeal to this court. On hearing, that injunction was perpetuated, and, from the judgment through which this was done, an appeal is prosecuted to this court. The judgment rendered in the justice's court was a joint judgment against David Jordan, Tamer Jordan and the sureties on the replevin bond. An appeal from that judgment, by any party against whom it was rendered, annulled it. It was no longer a judgment which, in any event, would authorize an execution.
This is believed to be the rule in all cases of joint judgments where, on appeal, the trial is de novo. Powell on App. Pro., 357, 373; Freeman on Judgment, 328; Curtis v. Beardsly, 15 Conn. 423; Bank v. Wheeler, 28 Conn. 441; Campbell v. Howard, 5 Mass. 378; Bender Bros. v. Lockett, decided at last Tyler term.
The constitution provides that, in all appeals from justice's court, there shall be a trial de novo. An appeal from a judgment rendered in a justice's court does not merely suspend its execution until the determination of the cause in the appellate court, as does an appeal from the district court to this court, but its effect is to annul the judgment. On such appeals, the appellate court does not affirm or reverse the judgment of the justice's court, but tries the case, de novo, on its merits, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Canal Co. v. State Bd. of Water Engineers
...from a judgment of a Justice Court to a County Court annuls the Justice Court judgment. Bender Bros. v. Lockett, 64 Tex. 566; Moore v. Jordan, 65 Tex. 395, 396; Harter v. Curry, 101 Tex. 187, 105 S.W. 988. The County Court does not merely review the judgment of the Justice Court but tries t......
-
Jenkins v. State
...the county court in his favor. Campbell v. Howard, 5 Mass. 376;Curtiss v. Beardsley, 15 Conn. 518;Bender v. Lockett, 64 Tex. 566;Moore v. Jordan, 65 Tex. 395;Lucas v. Dennington, 86 Ill. 88;Rogers v. Hatch, 8 Nev. 38. The docketing of the cause in the district court did not merely arrest th......
-
Meredith v. Bell
...alone. It would not have been necessary for him to have made such bond payable to them as codefendants in such judgment. Moore v. Jordan, 65 Tex. 395-396; Slayton & Co. v. Horsey, 97 Tex. 341-343, 78 S. W. 919; Lewellyn v. Ellis, 102 Tex. 297, 299, 116 S. W. 42; Martin v. Lapowski, 11 Tex. ......
-
Parker v. Watt
...perfecting of an appeal under the statutes operates to avoid the judgment of the justice court. Bender v. Lockett, 64 Tex. 566; Moore v. Jordan, 65 Tex. 395; Tel. Co. v. McKee Bros. (Civ. App.) 135 S. W. 658; Martin v. Butner, 54 Tex. Civ. App. 223, 117 S. W. 442. But, as held in Roberts v.......