Philips v. Sanders
| Decision Date | 06 April 1904 |
| Citation | 80 S.W. 567 |
| Parties | PHILIPS v. SANDERS. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Bowie County Court; A. S. Watlington, Judge.
Action by S. P. Philips against W. W. Sanders. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
J. E. Garland, for appellant. J. F. Jones, for appellee.
Appellant instituted suit in the county court of Bowie county to obtain an injunction against a judgment in the justice's court for $123, and for damages in the sum of $1,000, growing out of the seizure of property under an execution issued by virtue of said judgment. A temporary writ of injunction was granted. On a trial before the court judgment was rendered dissolving the injunction and against appellant on the question of damages.
Not only the amount of the judgment in the justice's court, but the whole amount in controversy, was less than $200, and on the authority of DeWitt County v. Henry Wischkemper, 95 Tex. 435, 67 S. W. 882, the county court had no authority to issue an injunction to restrain the execution of the judgment. The Supreme Court in that case held that county courts have no power to issue writs of injunction in cases where the matter in controversy is less than $200 or more than $1,000. The amount of damages sought by appellant should not be considered in connection with the injunction, but, if they should be so considered, they would cause the amount in controversy to exceed the jurisdiction of the county court. It follows that the county court had no jurisdiction as to the injunction sought by appellant. The county court, however, did have jurisdiction of the matter as to the damages, and properly disposed of that matter in its judgment. The facts fail to show any merit in the claim for damages.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jordan v. Massey
...cognizance of the other. Starke v. Cotten et al., 115 N. C. 81, 20 S. E. 185; Holden v. Warren, 118 N. C. 326, 24 S. E. 770; Philips v. Sanders, 80 S. W. 567; Gentry v. Bowser, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 388, 21 S. W. 569. We therefore think the court below did not err in assuming jurisdiction of thi......
-
Carter v. Gray, 8862.
...of the other. Starke v. Cotten et al., 115 N. C. 81, 20 S. E. 184; Holden v. Warren, 118 N. C. 326, 24 S. E. 770; Philips v. Sanders [Tex. Civ. App.] 80 S. W. 567; Gentry v. Bowser, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 388, 21 S. W. 569. We therefore think the court below did not err in assuming jurisdiction o......
-
Consolidated Advertising Corporation of California v. Gibson
...determining the jurisdiction to issue the writ of injunction [DeWitt County v. Wischkemper, 95 Tex. 435, 67 S. W. 882; Philips v. Sanders (Tex. Civ. App.) 80 S. W. 567, par. 2], it is plain that the county court of Waller county was without jurisdiction to enjoin the enforcement of this jus......
-
Smith Bros. Grain Co. v. Jenson
...enjoin the enforcement of a justice court judgment for less than $200. De Witt County v. Wischkemper, 95 Tex. 435, 67 S. W. 882; Philips v. Sanders, 80 S. W. 567; Lyons Bros. v. Corley, 135 S. W. 603; Staley v. Derden, 57 Tex. Civ. App. 142, 121 S. W. No briefs have been filed, but the erro......